Harker

Do you have the historical filter enabled? It's a small watch/clock symbol at the bottom of the Mission Editor. Alternatively, if this is in multiplayer if a mission made by someone else, they might have restricted which weapons you can use.

Do you mind taking a look at the Harrier? Because its FLIR behaves the same as the Jeff's and shows all the new features, for me.

The Viper got some MIDS stuff implemented, not MSI. It doesn't have MSI at all (in IRL and DCS). MSI is the Hornet's internal system for sensor fusion, MIDS is about data sharing. I agree that without at least a partial MSI implementation (Radar + MIDS + FLIR data), our Hornet is missing an integral part of its avionics, simple as that. Also, at this point, ED can simply use the forums threads to model MSI.

It's not that, the new FLIR effects are simply not there at all, it still looks like the old system. No bloom on hot objects, no opaque glass, you can read letters and see the different camo patterns, you don't see the roughmet or the heat maps (depending on the unit) and you can't see jet exhaust heat and afterburner bloom.

NL, it's not working at all like the modules that have it implemented. You can still see letters and camo patterns in IR, hot stuff doesn't bloom at all, you can still see through glass, you cannot see exhaust heat or afterburner bloom. It still looks like the old system did. This isn't just a case of reversed polarity and contrast tweaking.

Open Beta 2.7.11.21408.1. Misaligned exhaust effect on the AGM-65. Tested with an AGM-65D, unsure if it affects other variants as well (probably yes).

Edit: I don't know why the post didn't display any text initially. Anyway, the intent is to report that the new FLIR doesn't seem to be implemented. Same goes for the F-16C and A-10C II. See attached screenshot, where IR WHT looks almost exactly like TV. Tests were performed on a completely vanilla install, after running a Repair and clearing out cached sharers. For comparison, I have tested with the JF-17 and AV-8B, where the new FLIR is implemented and the different is clear. A thread that discusses the issue: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/295201-new-flir-rendering-system/

I tested on Caucasus with the JF-17 and on PG with the AV-8B, they both work with the new FLIR. The F-18, F-16, A-10CII, F-14B do not work. Haven't tested Marianas, but I cannot imagine that it would make a difference. The note for it probably has to do with how the terrain looks with the new FLIR, but the aforementioned modules don't have the new FLIR.

I tested the Hornet, Viper, Warthog, Tomcat, Harrier and Jeff (don't have the Apache yet). Out of all of those, only the Harrier and the Jeff seem to have the new FLIR correctly implemented. The rest seem to still use the old FLIR, but with the reversed polarity bug.

I don't know about MIDS, but, for example, MSI (which uses MIDS) has enough info available for a mostly good simulation. At least one that considers Radar + Link 16 + FLIR contribution. All the required info and human-machine interface stuff are described in docs you can easily find online.

It's not a matter of debate, the Hornet's ASPJ does not use the radar to jam and I don't know how this rumor started. The radar shouldn't be silenced either, it's just a matter of how it's implemented in DCS. IRL, the pilot can specify Radar or Jammer priority and the choice will determine which of the two will be forced to use sub-optimal frequency channels in the case of interference, that's all there is to it. The fact that DCS models it a certain way does not mean that it's correct. Although I haven't read up on the Viper's ECM, it should work similarly, with Pos 1 prioritizing the radar and Pos 2 prioritizing the jammer. The two options merely control which device is prioritized for optimal operation, if there is interference, but Pos 2 shouldn't straight up silence the radar, for example, just limit the number of channels it can use. But we don't have channels in DCS. A better implementation would be to have Pos 1 have 100% radar + 50% ECM and Pos 2 be 50% radar + 100% ECM. But then, in DCS, ECM is a binary attribute. The same should apply to the Hornet.

I tested on the same mission, before and after the Repair and it worked after. And on SP, I tried with a simple mission, only a Tanker and me in a Hornet. Didn't work before the Repair, worked after.

I had the same problem, in both MP and SP. I've been using the Joker callsign for our Hornets and recently, all AI assets stopped responding, but I could see the XMIT/Receive symbol show up on the UFC radio windows. After going through several things, a DCS Repair solved the problem. Hopefully this will help some people here.

Definitely aware, considering the number of threads and bug reports on the matter. As for the second part, no idea.

In addition to what the others said, if you have no reason to be flying at a particular altitude, just use your FPAS page and fly at the indicated optimum altitude, in order to maximize fuel efficiency.

yeah, gotcha

True, but it also goes beyond being able to designate them. MSI trackfiles are treated the same, regardless if the radar is a contributing sensor or not, with few a exceptions (most notably, the ability to launch an AMRAAM requires radar contribution, unless I'm mistaken). So, both ownship and offboard trackfiles will be ranked, be included in the stepping process with the Undesignate button, be considered in the TWS AUTO scan and you should be able to command the radar to attempt STT on them with FACQ (via SCS with TDC on the track or by having it as L&S).

I had this as well yesterday, for the first time. Tanker was a KC-130, I was on the correct frequency, I tried both radios. I could see the triangle on the radio window, indicating activity, but I couldn't hear anything and the tanker dialog wouldn't progress in the comms menu. That was in MP, so the track is huge and unusable. SP works OK. MP worked fine before yesterday. This was something I'd done hundreds of times before.

Right now, in DCS, the Hornet's TWS AUTO doesn't work at all like it should and it only takes radar trackfiles into account. IRL, TWS AUTO is completely automated in that it optimizes the scan pattern to cover as many MSI trackfiles (including ones from datalink and FLIR) as possible, while prioritizing the L&S, DT2 and targets under AMRAAM attack and going down ranks. You can also select options with the TDC, no need for button presses. Which is also easier IRL, due to the higher max slew rate of the TDC. If we get a fully working TWS AUTO, with MSI, then it'll be very hands free.

VIRTUAL CARRIER AIR WING 17 About us: Virtual CVW-17 operates the F14-B Tomcat flying in VF-103 "Jolly Rogers" and the F/A-18C Hornet flying in VFA-34 "Blue Blasters". We simulate the composition of the real CVW-17 in the early 2000's, operating on the CVN-73 USS George Washington. What we offer: We fly missions and trainings every Tuesday and Thursday at 20:30 CET (Central European Time). We are comprised of people from all skill levels and professions and are also fortunate enough to have real life aviators in our ranks. Our mission profile is diverse and covers the entire multirole spectrum. Missions usually last around 2 hours and may include a variety of tasks. As we are a naval air wing, carrier landings and air to air refuelings are the norm and we often train in them. A small but nice detail is that, once you are accepted, you will be assigned a personalized jet, made by our talented livery makers. Mission Statement: Our objective is to bridge the gap between casual and milsim groups. We believe in learning and applying certain real world procedures and techniques, with the intent of becoming competent virtual aviators, while at the same time recognizing that DCS is a game. We are looking for motivated and dedicated players, who are not afraid to challenge themselves and enjoy cooperation, coordination and a light atmosphere. Above all, we want our sessions to be engaging and immersive. VF-103 offers a small training syllabus to get you familiar with our way of doing things, based on real world procedures. Who are we looking for? Dedicated and experienced F-14 players. VF-103 is looking for people who want to take responsibility and build a cohesive squadron. What we expect: We do not have mandatory attendance but we see ourselves similarly to a sports team: it is all meant to be fun, but if you are a regular no show or are unwilling to learn from your mistakes, this unit might not be for you. What is most important to us is not that you are the best Tomcat player, but that you are dedicated and willing to learn. If this is something that sounds good to you, then we will be happy to have you. Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/kkyWJa7Fey

None of the SAMs in DCS are really dangerous if they're deployed unrealistically. That SA-11 would be surrounded by SHORAD, such as SA-15s and SA-19s (and a bunch of AAA), which can and will take out at least some HARMs, even if they approach in a top-down trajectory.

Considering that g is a conventional unit for an acceleration value of ~9.81 m^2/s, 0 g simply means zero acceleration, nothing else. You can achieve 1 g by means other than falling into a gravity well. You are right, however, in that no matter where you are, you're always inside all of the gravity wells or one single, personalized "effective well", which depends on your position. You can imagine an ideal circular orbit like someone running on the side of a curved bowl, with a constant speed and just fast enough velocity to always remain a set distance from the center. In reality, when an orbit is unassisted (no external acceleration), it will, inevitably, decay over time due to energy loss. Edit: that was so OT, I'm sorry.

Yeah, the current radar workflow is rather difficult, owing to the current trackfile behavior and the absence of MSI. It's a complaint I get often from new players in our group and all I can say to them is it's still WIP. IMO, at the very least, MSI needs to be partially implemented, with the radar and datalink as two sensors. Having the FLIR contribute to MSI would be almost as important, but I'd rank it below those two. Trackfiles are in dire need of a rework and so is trackfile memory. MSI trackfiles exist regardless of what the radar is doing and that's a necessary thing to get right. The radar is just one contributing sensor to them. That would solve issues with smooth transitions between STT and TWS, for example. It would also allow off-board trackfiles to be designated, ranked, included in TWS AUTO and have the FLIR slave to them. Most importantly, It would actually allow us to easily step through all trackfiles, whether our own radar sees them or not, so that TWS AUTO becomes useful and we don't have to constantly need to switch back to TWS MAN or RWS to make azimuth and elevation adjustments, as we do now. We'd be able to designate any trackfile and TWS AUTO would focus on that. TWS AUTO done right would also be important, because now it's just the same as in the Viper. I would rank a correct TWS AUTO as very important, but again, below the above items. And then you of course have your low hanging fruit, such as consistent ranks between RDR, AZ/EL and SA, ranking not changing when designating L&S and/or DT2, off-board tracks on AZ/EL, correct trackfile extrapolation so they don't jump on the display, trackfile memory not affected by the brick timeout setting and correct TDC speed. I would (hopefully) expect these to be fixed in the relatively near future, considering they're already mostly implemented and just in need of adjustment.

No one can answer that question but ED themselves. It is still very unclear how the final version of the DCS Hornet will compare to the real thing.

Are you sure it's not due to ECM? Hornets, Vipers with the switch in pos 1 and 2 and most AI units will use ECM only when locked. So, if you're attempting STT, they use ECM and you can't lock them. If that's the case, it's not a bug. What were the ranges you were trying to lock in STT from? If they were above ~21 NM, the above is normal behavior for DCS.