Harker

It's a player's problem if they don't bother just turning on the IFF system and selecting 4A or 4B. It's literally 1 or 2 button presses more, after turning the system on. If key rotations were implemented, the server could have a small message pop up when a player occupies a slot, telling them the current key. Since Mode 4 is what's strictly required for MP, it wouldn't be a problem. Turn IFF on, select 4A or 4B and you're good to go. Normally, they could also go to ROE/IFF PROG in the SUPT menu and select other codes and the times for key rotation, if it's not done by the ground crew, but we don't have that. As for the other modes, no one says they'd be used by the vast majority or that they'd be used often by anyone. But it's a capability of the real jet, it already exists in DCS in the JF-17 and as such, it would be nice to have it be functional in the game. As you say, some milsim groups would use such features and this is supposed to be a high fidelity simulator game that caters to such groups, or at least one would hope so.

True, forgot about that. They have to be the ones to do it though.

Other modes can be used to identify specific aircraft, flight missions, report altitude etc. The CIT can interrogate in all modes, which means that there's probably a way to get the results of such an interrogation (maybe in the TGT DATA page or in the Radar or Az/El formats). Imagine that you know an allied flight is in front of you, but you don't know exactly where, they're mixed with other aircraft and you also don't have Link-16 (otherwise you can just get the a/c name from there). You can use their specific Mode 1 or Mode 2 codes to locate them. You interrogate the space in front of you and only their transponders send a reply back.

I had to test this for myself. Hopped in an F-14B against 4 Vipers loaded with AMRAAMs. Kept flying straight, turned on the jammer and popped 1 or 2 chaff for every AIM-120C coming my way. None of them hit, not even one. Shots from 5NM away went for chaff. Some missiles pulled 25G in order to turn towards the chaff.

I believe the OP means that the current Mirage 2000-5 3D model could be updated very easily, by taking Razbam's M-2000C 3D model and making small changes to it. It's not a bad idea, if ED and Razbam agree on it.

I'm not familiar with the Kh29T's limitations when it comes to low light conditions, but it has a TV seeker, not an IR one. I'm guessing that getting enough contrast to lock and guide towards a target is not possible at night.

OP, are you sure that you're not in the SA page instead of the HSI?

You can stabilize the MAVF in space by keeping the TDC depressed while maneuvering.

Oh, most definitely, I'm not complaining in the slightest. I'm just wondering if we'll be able to have any control on when and how the ASPJ works. From the video, it seems like it's completely automatic. No idea how the real thing works, maybe it's solely intended for self-protection, as the name implies. I just think it'd be nice if we could also create an ECM environment in order to deny information, which we now cannot. Again, no idea how the ALQ-165 works, maybe it's programmed to attack enemy radars only when they're locking you.

So there isn't any way to deny range information by manually using the ASPJ? It'll only work if we're STT'd?

For flights accessed via the Training menu, you should leave the loadout as it is, since the training mission might break if you change it. There should be free flights, as well as other missions available, check out the relevant section in the user manual located in your installation directory, under \Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Doc\DCS User Manual EN 2020.pdf As for contacting the ground crew, use the communications menu, either with \ or using the aircraft radios, and then use either the mouse of the F1-10 keys to select the desired choice. The relevant tree is Comms->Ground Crew->Rearm and Refuel. You will then see a panel that allows you to select your loadout, and you can either choose from a list of presets or manually right-click on each station and select what you want to load.

SCS to Radar (that invokes AACQ, FastACQ etc) works much better now and is reliable most of the time. Most of the old issues are appear to be resolved. One thing that's not working yet though, is the rejection of the previous AACQ contact for 10 seconds, which is done by using the SCS again, after you've used it to enter AACQ before.

I was just making a suggestion, in case you hadn't tried it. The thing about stealing missions and docs is... a little weird, I'll give you that. I agree, to each their own. I played SP for years before I switched to MP and while I now enjoy MP more, it's also much more involved than SP and doesn't always go smoothly. TBH, this is the first time I hear people complaining about the dynamic campaign, I thought everyone was excited for it. I know I am and I hope it can be used on servers.

You can always alter the mission in the mission editor before flying it or contact the ground crew and ask them to change your loadout, if you're starting from the ground.

Sounds like you'd enjoy playing with a squadron though. There are several groups out there that will accommodate a wide variety of playstyles, while offering a nice experience.

You should do 2 to 3 IFF interrogations, just to be sure. It's an imperfect system. Some real life ROE require multiple interrogations like that. If SRS is available on the server and people aren't on it, so they cannot respond to a Raygun call, it's their fault. If people forget to turn on their IFF transponders, that's also their fault. But their fault can become your problem, as you can see. This is why IRL, VID is still very much used. Now, whether the server mission is structured in a way that coalitions make sense and VID is a realistic option, that's another question.

FWIW, the A/A tracks also don't work correctly, since now even one sweep is enough to generate a trackfile. A trackfile should require at least two hits that can be correlated. I believe the Viper's TWS works more correctly in that regard, requiring at least two hits before a TWS track is generated, at least it did last time I checked. Seems like the brick and track logic in the Hornet needs a small rework.

Well, considering that the JDAM has a CEP of ~13 meters (which means that 50% of bombs will fall within a ~13 meter circle radius, with the rest 50% falling outside of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable), you shouldn't expect it to hit head-on every time. Far from it, actually.

I would also like to see that change, although ED marked the last thread as [Correct as is], IIRC. Right now, if I want to have good TDC speed on the DDIs, the HUD designation is very jumpy and cannot be used for anything more than general area designation from any reasonable distance. I have limited success correcting designations for AUTO drops, while I'm in the diving phase, but it's unreliable. I'm also using the Deltasim slew.

+1. I'd love to have the option to remove unnecessary liveries, without having to re-download them every time. Like others say, just have a default one, that will be used if the other person is using a different livery and then allow us to download the ones we want via the module manager.

Eh, I don't see this being a viable option in DCS. Some skins can be more than 0.5 GB large, can you imagine having to download, like, 5 of these just to join a random server? I think it'd be better for ED to change the way decals work. Have one or a few empty skin bases (diffuse texture without decals, normal map, rooughmet map) and have a system that allows you to swap between multiple different decals on the wings or tail and have your own name on the side of the aircraft. It can work similarly to how the dynamic bort numbers work now. An improvement would be to place the decals and bort numbers layer below the roughmet layer, so the reflections can still look correct. If nothing else, this needs to happen to fix that particular issue with the bort numbers now.

You can also track them with the TPOD in PTRK mode. The main issue is that they only render closer to the player, so they're not consistent objects in the game world. I also tried with the A/G radar in MAP mode in EXP3 and although I could see them with my TPOD, EXP3 only showed completely empty roads.

On a side note, I'm very curious to see if the GMT mode will pick up civilian traffic in DCS.

Same thing happens with the bricks on the A/A radar in RWS. It's either an issue with how the entire system works in DCS or that the radar sweep line is just an approximate representation of the actual sweep for the benefit of the pilot and shouldn't be taken literally. I have no idea which one is true.

Eh, I don't really agree with this. I, for one, would not be interested in the F/A-18A, if the C was available. So why would I have to pay for the A or support the development of Cold War assets, if I'm not interested? Vote with your wallet and all that. You are essentially saying that people can't have a modern aircraft, unless they're willing to pay through the earlier variant and subsidize its development. It even becomes a little bit of P2W, since the significantly more expensive modern aircraft would always be superior to their Cold War versions. I actually think that the DLC way is good, but if it goes both ways. Owing one gives you a discount for the other. If an F/A-18E, F, A or D would be developed, it could be sold as an upgrade to the F/A-18C or as a standalone module. Offering discounts for the other variants makes them attractive choices, if one decides to simulate a different period, try out multicrew or single seat or simply collect the entire family. And no one feels like they have to pay more for their aircraft of choice. The more modern variants can still be more expensive, but not to the point that they're including the price of another aircraft. The argument that everyone goes for the most modern stuff and so older tech aircraft would be left behind is only partially true, since, while many certainly do, there are a lot of people that happily fly the MiG-21 and F-14A. Consequently, many will jump on the opportunity of flying a F/A-18A or F-16 Blk30 in Cold War scenarios. There's a whole thread of people asking for more 80s/90s western aircraft.