Harker

Happy to help!

No matter the reasoning here, we are still talking about private servers. As in, people are paying for them. And as such, the people that pay get to dictate everything there. The end. If an admin is being largely unfair, they'll either get replaced or the server will decline in popularity. If ED wants to have a say in how servers operate, they should launch dedicated servers. Which they should do, anyway.

1. Select CODE on the STORES page. 2. Select CODE on the UFC (it needs to become colonized). That's what a lot of folks miss. 3. Type the code. 4. Press Enter. You should see the XXXX below the bombs on the STORES page, change to the code you entered.

What Dagger71 said is correct nonetheless. These are servers paid for by either groups, squadrons or whatever else and ED has zero business in how they are run. Any suggestions of this nature should be directed towards the server admins or better yet, towards the people that fund the servers. No matter how they're funded, these are private servers.

You also need to set up the laser code, using the CODE option that presents itself in the STORES page, when you select appropriate weapons. If you press it, the UFC will then show CODE. You select that option, put in the correct 4-digit code and press enter. You need to do this for each station. Valid codes are: 1st digit: 1 2nd digit: 5,6,7 3rd and 4th digits: 1-8 If you want to use your own TPOD to lase, then you need to match the codes of the TPOD and the bombs. The default TPOD code is 1688. FYI, you can only arm the TPOD laser when you're in A/G mode.

Not implemented yet. EDIT: Why was this moved to the wishlist? It's a functionality of the HSI.

Seems like a Viggen issue. They show up on the F-18's AG radar, both as raw returns in MAP mode and as bricks in SEA mode.

1. It's only visible if you have TCN or WYPT boxed. 2. FPAS calculations are only possible when you are at or below Mach 0.9. If you're going faster than Mach 0.9, the info goes away and you'll also get an FPAS advisory.

Can't disagree with this one. Flight deck ops should be the primary focus. Improved, smoother crew animations would also be a nice thing, a lot of it looks very artificial now. TBH, I don't even know why we're bothering with detailed hangars etc, since pilots rarely see these. I will say one thing though, it seems like ED has set up an internal roadmap for the SC and at this stage, it may just be a better idea to let them finish it. It'd just be nice to know that roadmap, so we know when to expect stuff.

As a user-developed solution, this is pretty much the best it can get. I especially like the part about warning the pilot if they land overweight.

Since it's not mentioned in the roadmap, alongside other upcoming A/A radar features, I'd like to ask when bump acquisition (current STT rejection and exclusion for x seconds) is expected for ACM modes (2 second reject) and AACQ/FACQ (10 second reject). Similarly, VS and PVU modes are not mentioned anywhere. I assume PVU is coming with the full the INS simulation, what about VS?

The ghost TD box disappears and the actual locked target gets a correct box on it. The only think not working correctly is what Jack525 says below. That pretty much sums it up. I haven't found info explicitly saying that all tracks should be deleted from memory immediately (you can't interact with them in any way, but maybe they stay in memory in case you exit ACM quickly), but the L&S should definitely be cleared.

Very good write-up! One more thing, that I cannot know for sure, but I've come across from time to time, so take it with a grain of salt: IRL, after the AMRAAM goes active (with all gates optimized for the target etc), the datalink is maintained and the missile can benefit from further targeting info and correlate its own radar picture with the one received from the aircraft. Besides the obvious guidance advantage, one more thing that this helps with is notching. If the missile is notched or otherwise decoyed, it still receives targeting info from the launch platform, potentially increasing the chance to re-acquire.

HACQ and LACQ worked as well, as in they acquired targets other than the L&S without issues. But I did see the ghost L&S and general ghost trackfile bug. The system keeps present trackfiles in their current positions when it enters ACM. The trackfiles stay on the Attack page, but are not extrapolated anymore and of course not updated. If there is an L&S present, it will also be kept in place, with the HUD TD box pointing to its last location in space. It not only keeps the L&S, it also kept a TUC'd track for me, as well as non-TUC'd and non-designated tracks. These trackfiles don't seem to ever go away. That of course shouldn't happen. After entering ACM, the radar should, at most, extrapolate present tracks until they fade and drop, like it does in SIL mode. This is a potentially dangerous issue during ACM, if someone is relying on the HUD TD box to locate their target and instead looks at the empty space that was occupied by a trackfile some time ago. Track attached. FA-18C_trackfile ghost stays after entering ACM.trk

Entering ACM should cause the radar to lock the first target it sees (bump acquisition notwithstanding and that's not modeled yet anyway). This is stated in no unclear terms in a certain manual that I can send as PM if needed. From what I could find, it is not mentioned that the L&S is specifically dropped (maybe it's kept in memory mode), but the ACM mode should disregard the L&S and just lock the first target it sees regardless of anything else. BTW, I tested this myself with an L&S created in RWS, but the ACM BST mode successfully locked up another, undesignated aircraft. Tested with TWS as well, same result. I personally could not reproduce.

Assuming you want to end up in a certain scenario, why avoid it? It's up to the user and the mission maker to make the most of the aircraft at hand. If you insist on ignoring VID or at least NCTR (which brings you close enough for a FOX1 shot) and launching an AMRAAM from 40 NM, then it makes sense that you won't end up in a dogfight. Remember that Super Hornet that launched an AIM-9X that missed and then used an AMRAAM? Why not try to bring yourself into more realistic situations like that, that bring you closer to the enemy, if this is what you want? Ask any real pilot and they're going to choose a modern glass cockpit 10/10 times. The interface is much more intuitive and it's far easier to navigate through a few menus, than it is to flip 5 switches and turn 3 dials. The display of information is vastly improved. As for the complicated sensors, you only need to deal with them if you want to use them. Don't want to use the A/G radar or the TPOD? Good news, you don't have to, you can go for a manual bombing. You can create the kinds of missions that you want, without having to use any of the modern stuff. Then do that, play the way you want. That's what I've been trying to say. Set the date to 1982 and you don't have GPS at all, remove the JHMCS in the Editor and don't turn on the D/L. There you go. And at the same time, people who want to fly a 2005-ish Hornet, for example, can do so, with the same product. Agreed on that, we need more modern air defenses on both sides and that IADS module cannot come fast enough. But you can create very challenging scenarios already, by using triggers, limiting max engagement range in the unit tab and setting up a serious layered network. I see a lot of people talking about just launching a couple of HARMs and JSOWs against an SA-10 and calling it a day and an equal amount of people who like to go low and fast with Snakeyes. What both groups forget is that if there's a serious network in place, with supporting multiple supporting SHORAD units and scores of AAA units, which is currently achievable, the first approach will likely do nothing unless you increase the number of HARMs significantly and the second approach will see you shot down before you even see that SA-10. Maybe not significantly worse, but they'd have definitely done worse. Also, a lot of people, myself included, are attracted to modern systems, because it's the closest thing we get to the real thing, as it is now and because avionics is an interesting part of military aviation. The aircraft would probably fly very similarly to how they fly now - these were FBW birds from the beginning. And you get systems management for sure, but you get fewer systems. Why would someone who enjoys system management say no to more complicated and modern systems? Exactly, a second person. Not you. It's funny that you mention SP, because the F-14 specifically is a pain in SP. You just fly, press the trigger and interact with an awkward wheel interface to micromanage Jester, who is a borderline incompetent RIO. I was actually excited about the F-14 and was prepared to focus on a Cold War aircraft in SP, until Jester turned me completely off. You can't even fly as RIO, because the Iceman AI can only fly straight and in MP, you can't even switch seats or be RIO by yourself. You need to choose to either fly or do systems and you rely on someone else if you want to do the latter. At least you can experience the full aircraft yourself in the F-18 and F-16. Anyway, I'm going way off topic here, but TBH, I enjoy the conversation and debate. IMO, the MiG-29A will be welcomed by the DCS community, simply because it's a MiG-29. Some people are disappointed that it's not going to be a contemporary match for the modern BLUEFOR jets, but that's that. I don't get the unnecessary comparison of Cold War vs Modern, DCS is a sandbox and as such, can and should accommodate different playstyles, with the limiting factor being an uncompromising approach to realism. I fly modern BLUEFOR jets and I'll probably pick up the MiG-29 (once it's completed), simply because it's an iconic aircraft.

Some people here have a weird dislike of modern aircraft. DCS is a sandbox and it caters to the tastes of different people. Some people enjoy doing CCIP while dodging AAA, some others enjoy punching in coordinates, firing a SLAM-ER and providing terminal guidance, which will be a very uncommon occurrence, for anyone playing realistically. Dumb bombs and gun runs are used today as well and pilots train for them. Anyone is free to take Mk-82s instead of JDAMs (I do, for undefended or low value targets). It's up to the mission creator to provide an environment where stand-off weapons make sense. It's not ED's fault if someone loads 6 Mavericks (OK, that one is ED's fault) on the F-16 and goes to town on an unarmed truck convoy, or uses a SLAM-ER to take out a tank. If you play missions realistically, you'll implement realistic loadouts, limitations and challenges. Similarly for A2A, if something like VID is required, you won't fire your AMRAAM from 40NM and call it a day. Which, BTW, is what a lot of F-14 players do. The modern multirole aircraft attracted thousands to DCS and they add an extra layer of systems management on top of flying, that can be very effective and satisfying if used correctly. The 80s are fine, but let's not pretend that any time after that is boring. The MiG-29A has its place in DCS, for its own scenarios, as do other aircraft. And if servers are so inclined, they'll implement restrictions to force a more even fight, assuming that this is what the fuss is all about.

This is not a Hornet-related issue, but anyway, yes, your resolution influences unit visibility. DCS does not do any kind of unit size scaling, so units can be as small as a few pixels. In 2160p, this can make it difficult to spot things. 1080p has a quarter of the resolution, so the smallest possible apparent size is 4 times bigger, making it easier to spot stuff.

I can't argue with that. An elitist attitude doesn't help anyone. I'm personally against automatic helpers, but I'm all for improved training missions and, for example, with additional visual cues and advise on how to correctly fly formation. I think one of the biggest problems of DCS is that in SP, you're the flight lead 98% of the time, meaning that you never have to learn how to fly formation. I've been playing DCS since 2013 and until last year, that time was mostly spent in SP. I knew the Hornet inside and out and I could even AAR reliably (took me a long time to do it, but I was putting it off, tbh). But when I tried playing online co-op, I found out that I was terrible at keeping formation, because I never learned how to. I now run a squadron and I have guys manage to AAR, after 3-4 months in DCS. And I think it has a lot to do with two things: 1. The fact that they learn how to fly as wingmen. 2. How we go about teaching AAR. I'll tell them what they need to do and give them the tips I know. They'll try and they'll fail to connect. I'll stay on the SRS and talk them through it, keeping them from getting frustrated and more often than not, it yields very positive results. A helpful attitude helps a lot.

I agree with the above. The Hornet, Viper and Tomcat brought heaps of people into DCS. The Tomcat is the Tomcat, but the Hornet and Viper are attractive because they pair iconic airframes with complex avionics and system management. And I, for one, love the avionics side of things. The amount of control and SA you have over the battlefield, the easiness of communication, coordination and target sharing is amazing for MP, for example. And that doesn't detract from learning the more fundamental aspects. Very often, these people are interested in learning the aircraft properly, modern and older weapons alike. I run a squadron and one of the things that we require and train is correct manual bombing with dumb bombs. While ED building the most modern versions they could is easily understandable to me, another reason might be that they wanted to include a variety of PGMs, since unguided weapons are largely ineffective in DCS, owing to the very basic damage model of ground units and the lack of frag effects. A rocket run sounds good in theory, until you empty your pods and realize that you killed 3 soldiers and a truck.

That's actually a pretty good description. It's a kind of dance vs your opponent. If you can figure out the frequency range(s) they jam, you can negate most of their ECM's effect and vice versa. Plus, that 21 NM burn through range is BS, a radar can be jammed from up close just fine, if the appropriate ECM technique is used. I'm not 100% certain, but from what I understand, the Channel option in the Radar page can be used to operate in different frequency ranges, IRL. And frequency ranges is something doable in the sim, it's just one more variable in the radar/ECM lookup table. In the meantime, a compromise would be to have the normal noise jamming with the radar in bypass mode and what we have now if bypass mode is not enabled.

This can't be correct. Even if the pitch up behavior with auto flaps and gear down is correct (I'm not saying it is), the FCS should set the flight surfaces to maintain 1 G flight, with gear up and flaps to auto. It's what the particular FCS does. The latter doesn't occur in game, at the moment. If you take off with auto flaps, the FCS never reverts to 1 G flight after the gear is up. It keeps pitching up, for ~1.2-1.3 G.

I don't expect a GCI system for at least 3-4 years, if not more. I'm just saying that if such a thing comes along, it'd be a good selling point for the 29. Plus, the only example we have of the "improved ATC" is the Supercarrier and that system is extremely basic, breaks constantly in MP, offers very little actual interaction and is not dynamic at all. I personally don't see a half-decent GCI being possible any time soon. As for subsidizing development, I'm all for it. DCS is my main hobby and I don't mind paying for it. I'd gladly do so, if it meant a more polished product in the form of a freshly written DCS 3.0 or something. But that's another conversation altogether.

While I don't share the sentiment that modern BVR is boring, I do remember this statement from ED. TBH, it read more as "FOX3s and radars are hard to code, so go do dogfights, where all you need is a good FM". It's either that or them admitting that they sacrificed fidelity in the name of (what they think is good) gameplay, which is the equivalent of a cardinal sin in a sim. The backlash was immediate and they quickly rescinded that statement; I hope they have changed their approach since. No matter the system, old or new, they should model it as faithfully as possible. As for the FF MiG-29, I personally think it's going to sell well, despite its low perceived capabilities, especially if they create a decent GCI system to go with it. People will want to sit in the cockpit, flick the switches and experience all the quirks. The assumption that people only buy for capabilities is a flawed one. I have very little interest in older aircraft for MP, but even I am considering getting it, if nothing else, simply to fly in it. It'll also be a nice 80's choice for those who don't like dealing with two-seater aircraft, such as the F-14 (I was excited, but Jester really drove me away from SP in the F-14).

Oh, good to hear, thanks!