Harker

Planned feature by ED. It's at the end of the roadmap https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/236553-dcs-fa-18c-hornet-features-roadmap-2020/

I'd definitely be up for paying for different variants of existing aircraft. Not the F-4, as I'm not particularly interested in that one, but I'd pay for the F/A-18D/F, F/A-18E, F-16D, Mirage 2000-5. I also think that modernization upgrades would be nice and to sell well, such as in the case of the A-10C II. They can keep current modules relevant as DCS moves forward and more public info becomes available. Although they'd have to be cheaper, again, like the A-10C II.

Ooof. I just tested and the F-15C, FA-18C, F-16C and JF-17. Two MiG-29s, hot, high alt. The Eagle is more or less on par with the Jeff for detection range (~55 NM), the Hornet hit 60 (which is more or less correct) and Viper 60-65 (higher than public numbers I've seen). The Eagle had the lowest tracking range, I couldn't get into STT before ~45 NM.

We'll likely have to wait for the mission planning tool implementation, for that.

The F-16's radar in DCS is vastly overperforming compared to the real APG-68(V)5 though. You can currently detect fighter sized targets at 80+ NM and even STT them as well. That number should be closer to 45-50 NM, according to public data. It often has a better detection range than the APG-73 of the Hornet (in DCS), which shouldn't be the case.

I expect they'll revamp the entire effect altogether, when they add sparks, it's listed on the roadmap.

+1. It'd be nice to have the option to do this realistically, at least. I also think that it'd actually serve a purpose, even in 2D, as you could have the HMD be somewhere that suits your viewing angle, rather than always be in the middle of the screen.

If you are in STT or TWS AUTO, it's done automatically. In all other modes, you need to adjust it yourself.

+1000. We absolutely need this. It's very odd that the AWACS or AI fighters somehow know that this target, 200 NM away, is definitely a hostile. For AI to not break, this should remain, but as Pinky says, an option to disable the IFF part of the contribution, unless certain criteria are met, is very much needed.

I watched the video. The issue is that your radar is not detecting the target in the first place. What you see is a donated target from the AWACS. That's why you can't interact with it, because you haven't detected it yourself. In RWS, detected targets show up as bricks and unless you change some options under the DATA sub-menu, the brick will turn into a HAFU (symbol that gives info about the target, as well as their priority, with a number) when you put the cursor over it. And then you can interact with it. In TWS, the first 8 detected targets are HAFUs by default and the rest are bricks. Donated targets from the datalink, but not detected by you will show up as: Either small, full HAFUs if donated by the AWACS or as bottom-half only HAFUs if donated by another fighter on the network. If you are detecting the target yourself, the top-half portion of the HAFU is governed by you. In general, either disable the datalink (UFC - D/L - ON/OFF) altogether, so you only have your own radar as a variable or read about MSI and HAFUs. Now that you've cleared that, the problem to solve is why your radar isn't picking up the target in the first place. Are the targets at your altitude? Are you sure that your radar elevation setting is set up correctly, in order to pick them up? You'll achieve best results for targets flying straight towards you, at your altitude. Also, if you are detecting targets but your radar is dropping them faster than you'd like, you can go to DATA and increase the memory setting, top right. The AMRAAM has only 4 seconds (meaning that if the radar does not detect the target again within 4 seconds, it'll drop the track), I usually like to increase it to 8 or 16. Hope this helps. It's a lot of info, but it's a complicated matter. I personally recommend that you fly without datalink, in order to simplify the process in the beginning and only have the picture that your own radar creates. You can then include the datalink and enjoy the extra situational awareness.

Not at all. If by "classic" ECM, you mean noise jamming, details can easily be found in various university-level books. The same goes for more sophisticated, but still old, ECM techniques (RGPO, for example). The difficult and inaccessible part is to know how these techniques show up on aircraft radars and how the latter's ECCM (if available) deals with them. ECM isn't the problem, visualizing in in-game is. But even a rudimentary ECM/ECCM simulation, based on much older than modern techniques would be miles ahead of what we have in DCS now.

Excellent, if it's realistic like that, then that's how it should stay. Did you do this with a lua script or via the ME?

Very interesting, good work! I wish this could be tied to the actual cat shot power. Consider making a tree structure, to avoid having to go through the whole process for every 1,000 lbs. That's going to take a while if you're heavy. Maybe something like three 1st level options, like 36,000 - 40,000 / 41,000 - 45,000 / 46,000 - 50,000. Then, you can select like you do right now, from the 2nd level options. That said, I don't know how the actual exchange between the pilot and the WBO goes, but I expect that the latter has a ballpark already, more or less.

You don't bump it, like in the Viper. You quickly move the TDC outside and back in the tactical area (the radar B-scope square) in less than 0.8 seconds.

The instances you describe (low fps around Dubai etc) sound like GPU-related bottlenecks. It would help if you posted a screenshot of your settings, we'd be able to help more. Some quick suggestions: Shadows to Medium or Low , Terrain Shadows to Flat or Off, Visibility Range to High or below, Resolution or Cockpit Displays to 512, Mirrors off. The 32gb will help in bigger/longer missions and in multiplayer, so it's definitely not a waste, don't worry about that. However, if you can return it and go for another GPU or an i5, you might get better use out of it, right now. Depends on what maxes out, while the rest aren't maxed.

If groups want to attract more people, they have various ways of reaching out and advertising themselves. ED even added a Squadrons section to the forums. If a group is not advertising themselves, not reaching out, not present on the forums etc, then they're not interested in getting new members. Also, what kind of craziness is that? That a private server would have to disclose contact info? Maybe I'm running the server from my house, am I supposed to post my real email and phone number? Maybe the group in question has no Discord, no website and is just a bunch of friends playing together. This is like seeing a nice party in a house and trying to join, even though you weren't invited. The word "private" in the term "private server" means that the host has to do nothing and nothing is expected of them, unless they're in breach of the EULA.

It's been there before that. I remember seeing it a few times in the past. Maybe it's more common now.

Last info from ED was that it's planned, but no time frame was given.

I think it works according to what ED's info says, as in it selects the current waypoint as the center reference point for the MGRS grid selector screen. I remember reading that it's supposed to actually allow you to select a WP to edit, without switching navigation to it, but I'll have to find the info again.

Only in the cockpit. You can still set up more than 15 waypoints in the Editor, but you'll have to put them in a sequence yourself, in the cockpit.

It is part of the HSI functions, it should definitely be added. I'm guessing it's under the INS/GPS full simulation and alignment topic, which surely includes the HSI.

For speeding up the tutorials, use LCtrl+Z to speed up game time and LShift+Z to come back to normal. LAlt+Z slows down time. You can speed up or slow down more, if you repeat the command. As for the throttle going to Off, make sure that you don't have any double bindings for the IDLE/OFF position. Maybe they've been set up automatically for one of your input devices.

Vulkan and proper multithreading could definitely warrant a major version change to 3.0. Especially, true multithreading requires a rewrite of the simulation pipeline, so it changes the core of how DCS runs. I do wonder if it's going to be a full on implementation or just "some more things run on other threads now". If it is though, that and Vulkan make a different game, essentially.

You have the option to drop it and ensure that the missile won't go active. Maybe you wouldn't drop the track in DCS, but RL doctrine could be different and maybe aircrews were not allowed to keep an uncorrelated track for more than X seconds before dropping it manually, exactly to make sure that the missile will not go active against a target it's not supposed to. You have the option of aborting the shot. With an AMRAAM, you cannot do this, since the missile will go active by itself.

That's entirely possible. It's still an AIM-54 missile. Even if the guidance system and seeker are on par with early versions of the AIM-120, it could be that there are other limitations/considerations that never allowed the ability to go active on its own. I recall reading somewhere that part of the reason why the Phoenix needs a command to go active, is the fact that it has such a long range, battery life, achieves such high speeds and has a large warhead. In the event that a target is lost early after launching, you don't want a missile with like that to go active on something random. It's dangerous enough with the much smaller AMRAAM, as IRL events have already shown. I'm not saying that's the reason for the way it works, but it's food for thought.