Harker

No, the DL remains active throughout the entire engagement (if possible). This means that, once active, the missile correlates datalink data with its own seeker data for optimal tracking. This means that even if you, for example, somehow manage to notch the missile's radar, it'll still be able to guide via datalink updates and get close enough for a proximity detonation. And vice versa. This is one of the things that make such missiles extremely dangerous - it might be possible to notch the fighter or the missile, but it is almost impossible to notch both at the same time, since their radars usually paint you from different directions.

Maybe they're not in a turning fight, but just close to each other. IRL, assuming that your radar can differentiate them, it can communicate this information to the missile, even after it goes active, in order to help it locate the correct target. In DCS, once a FOX3 goes active, the datalink is severed and the missile goes to the first/closest target it sees. I haven't tested it yet with the new implementation for the AMRAAM, maybe that changed.

I've got nothing for colored vs green-only lines, but another TXDSG issue in MP is the fact that you see another player's Rank 1 target with a dashed line, regardless if the player has marked them as L&S or not. IIRC, dashed line should show up after the target is their L&S, not before.

Considering the new additions, why does look-down seem to be such a problem still, though? Especially look-down situations where the target is nowhere near the ground and thus ground clutter should never come into the equation, because of range gating. /topic/283107-active-missile-look-down-notch-width-seems-excessive/

+1 Actually, have the same options for moving zones, as for static ones. Right now, only "Unit in moving zone" exists. Part of/All Coalition in/out, Part of/All Group in/out, Bomb and Missile, would be very useful to have.

This only happens to me after WPDSG. Seems to be a bug. If you cycle through SCENE and AUTO back to INR, then it'll work. What should happen is that as soon as you depress the TDC on the FLIR page, the FLIR should become the designating sensor and designate the point it's looking at - which happens to be the waypoint in this case.

For setting the throttle axis curve, select it, go to Axis Tune, check Custom and Slider and then adjust the values to your liking. Try adjusting them in such a way that the response remains linear until the AB kicks in, at least.

Until an overhaul is done, please consider taking the range from the target to the ground, into account. Ground clutter should only be a problem if the target is very low over the ground and its return is actually mixed with ground returns. If the target is higher, then the range gate functionality of the radar will completely eliminate the problem.

No problem, happy to help!

When in DBS, the radar will continue scanning up to 90 degrees offset in azimuth, well past the 60 degree limit. 2.7.7.14727 Open Beta Track attached. F-16 AG radar DBS scans past radar gimbal limits, (+-90 degree total azimuth).trk

The Ambiguous targets are only seen by you, as indicated by the lack of a datalink contribution part (bottom part) in their HAFU. So no, the other F-18 is not seeing them. Could be because it's behind them and the detection range is decreased, since they're flying away from him. Switch him to front, next to you and see if something changes. You can also try swapping him for an F-15C, since the AI also contributes to Link 16 IIRC. You'll be able to tell if another aircraft is an F/F contributor by the presence of the dot on its PPLI circle periphery. Or you can bring the AWACS closer and see if it helps.

First of all, for a hostile aircraft to be marked as hostile (red HAFU), it needs to be contributed to by two different sources. Either IFF and Datalink or IFF and NCTR (with STT). IFF alone is not enough, IFF only tells you that someone is not friendly (no IFF reply), not that they're necessarily hostile. What likely happens in your picture is that the AWACS only sees the two aircraft as one and thus marks only one aircraft as hostile on its end. So, you're closer, your radar picks up all 4 aircraft, you IFF all of them, but you only have two different sources for the two flight leads (marked Hostile) and only one source (your own IFF) for the wingmen, so they're marked as Ambiguous (notice that the top of the yellow HAFU is thick, which means Ambiguous, instead of being thin, which means Unknown).

My thoughts as well. If the ability to do so comes to DCS, the Hornet should definitely benefit from it. It'd be a shame if it doesn't.

Yeah, azimuth selection should not affect DBS, as DBS only scans the area of interest anyway. And from IRL videos, the update speed should more or less be what it is with A6 in DCS right now.

So what if that HVT moves? How do you know that this particular blob on the tiny screen is your target? Plus, real eyes don't zoom in on the display, the way Wags did in his video. And if you're hunting tanks, then you'd use GMT with varying success, depending on whether or not they decide to make it easy on you and move around in open terrain. Without pretending to know how IRL mission planning happens, I'd imagine that the radar would be used for very large and well defined targets of opportunity, such an AWACS sitting on a taxiway. Airfields, bridges etc that were not initially included in the mission planning, would still be targeted using communicated coordinates.

While the current implementation of dynamic bort numbers doesn't look as nice from certain angles, it is by far preferable to having multiple, near identical, full liveries, each with its own number. I, for one, do not want to have so many default liveries, as they are a waste of drive space. The same solution could indeed be employed for canopy names etc, but it'd definitely be trickier to get it to look right.

Thanks for linking. Hopefully ED will notice it and now that the Viper seemingly gets a working solution, they'll fix it for the Hornet as well. At the current state, with the designation drift and the bugged EXP frame update rates, the A/G radar is unusable for anything beyond GMT and SEA.

Have you checked the position of the stabilized cue on the radar page after it refreshed, as well? There's currently a bug, where the MC won't compensate for your own motion and so if you designate, you will always be a little off. Normally, you should be able to designate based on what you see on the display. The bug becomes even more apparent when you use Freeze to designate, the designation is not even close, if you wait for a bit before you make it. I can't link the relevant bug thread right now, but IIRC it's reported.

Yeah, they shouldn't be that accurate by themselves. They should need terminal guidance to achieve a hit.

Guys, add a track of the problem. Without it, this won't be treated as a potential bug.

While I definitely share some of the OP's frustrations and I absolutely think that ED should take a step back from launching new stuff and work on core improvements (whether that is financially viable, it's not up to any of us to decide or talk about), I disagree with the notion that they shouldn't focus on stuff like the new AMRAAM improvements. People say that the AMRAAM works well enough already, but it doesn't. The AMRAAM (and all other missiles that have an INU) suffers from lacks of a fundamental feature - the ability to proceed to the calculated interception point. This is a major point in the guidance logic of the missile and it will prove even more important in missiles like the AIM-54. Also, the seeker improvements with target selection criteria are incredibly important in order to not have an essentially maddog missile once pitbull. Similarly, this hopefully sets the ground work for every missile seeker. DCS should be about the minutia. It's the point of the game. Do I agree that they should focus on the core? Yes, but at the expense of slowing development for new modules, not at the expense of leaving things half-implemented.

The burst height you select in the DDI is there to produce a correct firing solution, nothing more. And yes, I agree that it'd be very nice to be able to select the burst height on the ground, while rearming. But that's off-topic.

+1. Definitely nice to simulate the different optical zoom levels. Deka does a good job with the JF-17 on that and it's a small but very nice detail.

Would it be possible to get an estimate on what to expect in next week's patch, for the Hornet? Or at least what is in active development and estimated to be delivered by the end of the year? I want to emphasize that I'm just talking about estimates, not promises.