Capn kamikaze

Thank you.

Apology accepted:p

Every update we get seems to be a long list of fixes and changes to the core simulation or modules that have been out for years, but only 2-3 very minor changes to one of the most hotly anticipated modules on DCS for a long time, namely the Hornet. So frustrating.

I'm not too worried about the AIM-54, it was never designed to be used against fighters primarily, it was for killing bombers and cruise missiles, which have much more limited ability to evade fire, hence why the F-14 often carried a mix of AIM-9, 7 and 54's. If it's modelled right then there will be little point in the 54 being banned on servers, because I think people will soon learn how to evade them.

Thanks.

Bump

Thanks I'll give that a go, what director are they in, the main one or the user one?

Oh god not another F-16 thread....

Good for you.

Could we have the option to use the older Tarawa, the new one is causing massive frame rate drops, even on a decent system, not a problem when taking off from it, since when airborne it's behind you and not being rendered, but when near it in the hover trying to land on it, the FPS goes to hell and it's impossible to hover with any resemblance to stability. R7 2900X, 32GB, 2xGTX970's, SSD:game, SSD:OS, Win10p.

Just hit a vehicle in a group near the sea with a mav, and the others were damaged and scattered, one of them a Land rover decided it was fitted with a very long snorkel, it must have gone 15-20ft under.

AI.

We're getting the E, but having the J would be nice too, since that was one of the versions the USN flew in Vietnam, it would be a good match to the MiG-21.

Definitely need this, you can work around this though by specifying a list of redfor aircraft flights with the "part of group in zone" thing followed by the [or] and then the next group and so on.... But having the option of specifying a unit type to trigger it would be much more user friendly.

I put some vehicles in a convoy on a road and notice that the distance they pop into and out of view is different (less) than the civilian traffic on the road. Seems odd/wrong/an oversight.

AI parks at the aft of the deck just to the right of the landing area, actually on it a bit, even when all the rest of the deck is clear, causing an obstruction.

Simple as that.

The first option in the F/A-18 radio commands, to attack my target simply does not work.

It would be quite useful to have the option of having a unit engage different targets depending on its ROE state, eg a ship could engage another ship in its range, but not a plane, or the other way round.

Could we have the threat and detection zones colour coded and made visible/invisible in the mission editor like how they are in the F10 view. If we could have colours for the circles depending on what weapon it is would be useful when it comes to ships that have multiple systems, eg SAM's antiship missiles and cannons. It would aid making missions a lot to be able to easily see what range each circle represents.

Until actual relevant data is available for the actual missile in question, you can't write off the effects of a bluff body on this.

You don't have to do anything.... Recovery may not happen very locally but it will happen, and not everything separates at a shockfront, at a tail section it must at some point recover, the question is how far aft of the tail it does that, if you have a bluff body on one shape and a boat tailed shape on another there will be a difference, and that will include how the tail shocks behave, and using a model that is more comparable to an AIM-9B with a rounded dome nose and pretending that that is comparable to the profile of an AIM-120 (which this topic is about) is not a valid comparison or argument, such a shape will always generate more drag than a nose profile like the AIM-120 in the circumstances of this thread, and that link about the missile provides no actual data on the missiles drag coefficient at all, it's not featured in it, so saying one is showing more drag than the other, and citing that source is not valid either, so no conclusions can be drawn in either direction from that.

You're underestimating the effects of a bluff body shape.

There may be a bug but you have to remember the bluff body shape of typical missiles, the rocket nozzle creates a large low pressure zone relative to the frontal CSA of the missile right behind the missile, the bomb on the other hand is tapered front and back, reducing any bluff body effect it will suffer to nearly zero. The effect may be exaggerated, but it is still there, or at least it should be if ED have modelled the missile aerodynamics correctly.