Harker

I used it earlier on PG without issues. Remove any unofficial mods and run a repair for good measure.

Saw the same thing with off-board MSI tracks that were ~30NM out. They'd show up on the 80 NM and 160 NM scale, but not on the 40 NM scale.

Either of those two will work. The pod needs to be looking more or less there, already. Also, once you enter LST mode, there are two FOV levels for it, narrow and wide. By default, it starts on narrow and you can switch to wide, to get a larger scan.

I haven't come across anything specific to that option, but it's self-explanatory, isn't it? What else can it possibly do? The same option works correctly on the A-10C II, btw. If I do find anything specific, I'll send a DM.

Definitely should. Not implemented yet.

For MP, you set up aircrafts 1,2,3,4 in a flight as Client and like that, you can create flights. The game will recognize that you're a part of that flight and you'll see other players as wingmen, with PPLIs A, B, C or D, on the SA page, for example.

CCIP with a designation is a bug. Long standing bug, but a bug nonetheless

Again, the main argument is about the fake bloom effect, not how much the lights actually bloom. It's 2021 and fake bloom orbs have no place here, especially since the engine can correctly produce a real bloom effect. The best way to deal with this is to remove the fake bloom completely, while slightly increasing the illumination radius and applying angular constraints (cones) for illumination. There are some examples among other modules, both from ED and third parties, that handle this much better than the Hornet does.

Go in the options and check if Game Avionics or Game Flight mode is activated. Sometimes they can get enabled by themselves. I haven't seen that overlay myself, but it looks like something related to that.

I wasn't clear enough, I didn't detect the helo as a brick, I just found its return manually with MAP. I already knew where to look for it, this was in the context of a test. It was flying low and relatively slow, over a river, so I could pick it up. Only after I switched to FTT and successfully tracked it, I got a brick with heading and speed. I doubt it could pick it out over land, if it was moving, unless we're talking about a desert or something equally featureless.

I don't know how GMT will work, but I've been able to both detect a low flying helicopter in MAP mode with EXP2/3 and track it with FTT, getting correct heading and speed info on the brick.

There was a debate early on, about the position of the critical and safe bands. It was initially like in the manual, before ED obtained info that said it was reversed at some point, to what we have now (outer: safe, middle: lethal, inner: critical). Btw, there is logic to having the critical on the outer ring though, since you can more easily tell the azimuth and closely spaced critical emitters would be better spaced. But apparently, Northrop Grumman came around to your way of thinking as well. The selector knob should affect both the EW page and the azimuth indicator and you can see the selected knob setting on both. However, it doesn't do anything in DCS right now and all emitters, friendly ones included, are displayed at all times.

I want the exact same things as the community and I would prefer to see them sooner rather than later. I don't think I'll get much use out of the hangar, because why would a pilot go there and I don't think I'll get much use out of the ready room, because I use Discord with my squadron and it's easy to do briefings and debriefings there. I agree that these features will see marginal use, at best, by a large part of the community. But, working in code development myself (very different code, but still), I understand that once you start a project with a set schedule and planning, sometimes it's better for both you and the client if you stick to that, rather than change your priorities mid-development, that's all I'm saying.

To be fair, that's not a necessarily bad idea, although it may look like that, externally. It's usually far less efficient to shift priorities down the line, than it is to stick with the original plan, assuming that no blocking issues arise. I hope I'm right in this case. The way I (optimistically) see it, is that we can get all the features in, say, 12 months, if ED sticks to its schedule, or get desired features sooner, but then wait 18 months to get everything.

My only real concern is the performance impact that additional detailed areas will have. The SC is already heavy on performance as it is, I just hope that, if hangars etc come, optimization will be at the center of their implementation. I get that there are people who want to go below deck with their aircraft for some reason, but maybe some high-detail areas and/or scripts would only load and run if you a trigger something, like go on the elevator and start it or if you spawn below deck (if that'd be possible at all). That way, performance impact for flight deck ops will be minimized, while enabling a detailed below-deck environment. Same goes for the ready room, airboss station etc.

No one is arguing about the lights' actual brightness. The problem is the horrible, fake bloom effect. The lights are perfectly fine without the fake bloom and they even have a proper bloom effect if viewed from correct angles or directly straight. The fake bloom effect is present everywhere, it clips through stuff, it shows when the actual light source itself is not visible (and thus no bloom at all should be showing) and it's a shame, because it has no reason for existing. It should be a relatively easy fix, considering there are only things to remove (and maybe increase the illumination radius of the navigation lights). Below some pics with clear weather (no fog or anything). 1. Hornet on the runway from max zoom out, nav lights knob is barely above zero. 2. Nav light bloom, with knob barely above zero. Very little actual light (correct), but full fake bloom. You can see the bloom clip through the wings and fuselage and see the bloom on the wingtips, although you can't see the wingtip lights. 3. Nav lights, with knob to full. The real bloom effect is actually there and working nicely, plus they illuminate around them quite well. No need for fake bloom. 4. Tail light bloom, with knob barely above zero. Visible bloom although you can't see the actual tail light. 5. Landing light fake bloom effect, clipping through the AOA indexer assembly. The light source itself is not visible (so bloom shouldn't exist) The landing light naturally blooms very nicely when viewed from the front, the fake bloom is not needed. I agree, the actual brightness of the navigation lights is fine. If the fake bloom effects goes away, they could even stand to become brighter and have their illumination radius increased, so they can illuminate the world around them a little bit.

I also don't expect everything that's in public docs. Do I think we should get it? Yes. But I don't think we'll get all of it. Things such as a full HSI simulation or full functionality of the Radar page options (such as RF channels, duty cycle options etc). Although they're explained in great detail, down to the electronics and the signal processing where applicable, in public documentation, I don't think we'll see all of them in DCS.

True, true. Especially at higher elevations, the error would be too great. Which is what we probably see in DCS. BTW, I tried yesterday with AGR enabled, within the radar FOV and it still showed 0-2 MSL, while the real one was more like 5000.

I also don't claim to have first hand knowledge. I'm just taking my info from NATOPS and USN yearly reports. IIRC, TAMMAC should have been introduced into the fleet by mid-2000s. However, I don't know if our Lot 20 Hornet got it later. But if we didn't have TAMMAC (or at least DTED), we also wouldn't be able to do things we already do, in DCS. The FLIR, for example, wouldn't be able to generate elevation data, but it does. Also, we already have things that came after TAMMAC was introduced, if I'm interpreting docs correctly. Huh, I didn't know that. Interesting. I'm guessing the JHMCS wasn't integrated fully, yet. I always thought it was a 2-step process: JHMCS designates LatLong and then DTED gives elevation. From your description, it sounds like the JHMCS still waited for AGR elevation and when it couldn't get it, defaulted to a set value (0 MSL here). And yeah, DTED, depending on the level, can be quite coarse, but it should still yield something close to 0 AGL, unless there's a very sudden elevation change.

Regarding the drift and 0ft MSL, it shouldn't be an issue for a Hornet equipped with TAMMAC, because it has DTED elevation data available to it. And our jet should be equipped with TAMMAC (although the current HSI layout doesn't reflect that).

Right click and select a target with left click. IIRC, you need to have "Cockpit visual recon mode" enabled in the Options. And since it's visual, you need to be close, for it to work.

Right now, the AZ/EL page doesn't show offboard tracks, but it's supposed to. So when that feature comes, it'll be possible to cue the FLIR at an offboard track, while keeping your radar silent. And as Wags showed in the last Hornet video, you can cue the FLIR on a jamming contact (AOT) that your radar hasn't resolved the range for yet.

+1 would be very nice to see this. It'd add some authenticity to the catapult hookup process.

Might be related to this https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/258729-aim-120-aim-7mh-sd-10-produce-0-hit-chance-against-non-manuevering-hot-target-with-blinking-ecmchaff/?tab=comments#comment-4538373 https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/258686-amraam-ecm-interactions-unsure-if-intended-or-not/?tab=comments#comment-4537162 https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/258595-aim-120-tracking-and-notching/?tab=comments#comment-4537892 Although most testing done here is with the AIM-120, these issues seem to affect the AIM-7 as well. Before the last few patches, my AIM-7 shots within 10 NM would almost always connect. If nothing else, the AIM-7 was an excellent missile in WVR. More recently though, there are times that it seems to deviate sharply just before impact, chasing a chaff bundle the same way that an AIM-9L will chase a flare.

Never mind MP, my test was against 4 AI Vipers in SP. It's completely game-breaking. You're practically invulnerable in an F-14, against these missiles. And to make it clear, it's not the F-14 that has the problem, it's the missiles and the fact that their ECCM is non existent.