Wizard_03

Some of us appreciate DCS specifically for realism. I want the pod the jet used IRL during its career in the USN. Since that’s what ED sold to us.

Exactly, each weapon that requires a data cable is treated independently in the system. Allowing for data entry, and specific configuration options. Why on earth would they design a special rack specifically for IAMs and not provide the option to configure each weapon on the rack as desired. The missiles are configured per weapon not per station. I can change the settings for separate missiles on the same rack. The workaround itself proves that the system knows there’s two weapons there, so why are we not able to access individual settings for them? But If that’s a real life limitation, I’m ok with it, but I think they need to state that, because if it’s true, it’s a big caveat and needs to be acknowledged. I’ve never heard of a limitation like that. It doesn’t make much sense. In the harrier for example I can ripple as many JDAMs as I want with a single pickle and have each one go after a separate target, and it’s Avionics are heavily based on the hornets. If it’s not the case for the hornet they should come out and say it, either that or if they don’t have documentation on it, go with a more reasonable implementation that makes more sense given the context.

It’s better then the version of LITENING we have in game, for lots of reasons. Chief among them is: it’s rated for CATOBAR operations. LITENING is not.

Yeah him and SUBS17 were flying it :megalol:

That's what I'm saying, it seems like there is an OFP update we are missing. You should be able to use the rack in that manner, It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have accounted for that in SMS. I completely agree 8 bombs of any kind on the jet is completely unrealistic, But a single rack with two or two racks with four are quite common. The way the system works in game makes even those load-outs clunky and limited. The idea behind having separate missions in the SMS is so that you can have variables in the sortie, i.e. one for this set of circumstances, one for another, one for alternate targets ect. It's not for separate bombs, If I have to assign a separate mission for each bomb or for each pair of bombs on separate racks, it defeats the point. The mission profiles are for the missions, not the targets. I HIGHLY doubt it was designed that way. It's not how JDAMs are handled on any other platform with multiple-carriage racks I've ever heard of. We shouldn't have BRU-55s at all based on the time of our aircraft, but if they want to add them, I wish they would have better functionality.

Hold master caution to re-stack the caution messages. It’ll move them all to the lower right and out of the way, and get rid of the empty spaces.

What if I just had two GBU-38s/54s on a single BRU-55 though? The way it works in game I still need to have separate missions for them. even in PP mode. What if I need both targets hit near simultaneously, it’s seems like we’re missing something, that should be straightforward? I don’t understand why the system wouldn’t treat them as separate weapons...it doesn’t make sense. In other words, right now I can’t have two bombs come off BRU-55 to attack two targets under one mission and I don’t understand why. It seems limiting.

It can perform amazingly in ACM, but when I say that, I mean from 1980s-90s ACM perspective, back when staying behind the 3-9 Line was everything, because every WVR weapon required a rear aspect for a valid shot. Today It's completely different. All the STR and TWR in the world will not help you, when you get blasted with a HOBS weapon before the first turn after the merge. I'll trade ALL of that for nose authority so I can get the first shot off every single time, if that's the reality. Ergo hornet. It may not be as glamorous or aww inspiring, but it's every bit as deadly and then some. And that's exactly what tomcat crews IRL found when we gave the bug heaters for ACM practice. They took one look at the hornet and said, "Oh man it's weak sauce engines are pathetic, and it can't corner anywhere near me, and it's never going to get above me so I can just tomcat my way out of every fight, because I have F110s and I'm a rocket ship. But the second we go from guns to heaters they quickly understood that there is no running away from the hornet, and even though it cannot out corner you, it doesn't matter, because it can point at you in just about every aspect. It may not have any energy when it does, but that's no consolation when your the one getting shot. And a nugget can do that to you, because all he has to do is yank on the stick. Don't need to pay attention to wing rock, don't need to need to think about buffet, don't need to use the rudder above a certain AOA, just pull pull pull, and shoot. Now multiply that times 10 for 9x, But even if we add that to the tomcat, it's of no use because to make it count you need to push the jet all the way to it's AOA limits, and because it's a "pilots jet" that means you've gotta stay right at the edge of loosing control in a jet when recoveries are iffy at best. So now we need a FBW system in the aircraft just to allow it too safely compete. So when it's all said and done, your looking at something akin to a "hornet-Super hornet" level update to the jet, just for that single weapon system. Ergo ST21, which IMO goes into the category of "well if money weren't a factor then.." but the reality is, it's not only a factor, its possibly the most important one when it comes to building weapons. :) All that aside, personally the tomcat is one of my favorite jets, but it certainly has it's limitations.

Yeah I know, it’s just that ATFLIR Is the better pod. The real benefit for station 4 is that you can use the pod in counter air missions for visual IDs, AND carry a centerline tank at the same time. Which is important because the hornet has short legs.

Oh ok I understand, that’s reasonable. Thanks for the clarification!

So now we’re saying it is realistic after all?? Haha

Boeing listened, that’s why the block 2 super hornet got new displays with white instead of green symbology. Pilots thought the old ones were to hard to read. It’s actually implemented so well, we have the same problems with it that RL pilots do.

Put the display in night mode and turn the symbology up and put the brightness at about 2/3 that works better for me more or less when I insist on using the map.

And the same EA that won the consumerist 'worst company of the year' two years straight. :megalol: The same EA that's literally Destroyed some the greatest video game series and publishers ever. EA is like a video game factory..sure they sell lots of games and they pump them out fast, but they're quality is absolute garbage, They've had to resort to straight up gambling tactics to get people to keep playing and spending money. They are IMHO the biggest problem with the gaming industry right now, They have so much cash they no longer need to care what the average player thinks of them. The Exact situation subscription Schemes create. :) That's like saying McDonald's has the best burgers because they sell the most. ED on the other hand is like a local craftsman, they take forever, they're very expensive, and they don't have the best customer service, but the end result is unbelievable quality. It's clear, regardless of how you feel about their practices, that their products are created with passion and experience, something a big developer like EA will NEVER have anymore, because they don't care too, it doesn't make them as much money. Personally I'll take the long and expensive route for the better product any day of the week. That being said, current trends in the video game industry, don't really apply too the last realistic study simulation developer around. Many of it's employees are quite literally the only ones with experience in the modern flight simulator genre because they were doing it back in the days of Janes and Microprose. EDs customer base is loyal and they're not going anywhere. If for no other reason then the fact that there's nowhere else to go. No one besides ED is delivering products like this. Not their current competitors and certainly not the giants like EA.

Well no see that was different because its Guns only...I’d love to see the Cat beat bugs like that in a realistic situation. :) The problem with Cat people is they’re living in the 90s. Sure you’d be an idiot to think your not at a disadvantage against it...guns only. But it’s a different story with heaters, and it’s a very different story with wingmen, and an extremely different story with ECM. Then it turns into this discussion, well what if we gave it upgraded AIM-54s?? What if we gave it 9x?? Or they were going too, but they couldn’t or they wanted to but..blah blah blah the F-14 is the most insane case of should’ve, could’ve, would’ve, but didn’t, on theses forums it’s worse then the KA50 theorists IMO. So it’s a waste of breath for both sides.

After checking with the L-39 I definitely do not see a speed increase while inverted, however I don't see a speed decrease either. Which if we're saying that this is a drag issue I sure should have...I believe it has a symmetrical airfoil though so the drag on the wing while inverted is going to be minimal and It didn't result in a massive AOA change, I have no idea if the harrier has one too. I'm going to see if entry speed has anything to do with it next. Edit: So according to the documentation it has a super-critical airfoil, which is generally flatter on top, could we be seeing an effect of this? Because interestingly it seems speed plays a big role in this effect, its very pronounced at high speed, and almost non-existent at low speeds, which to me makes sense since at high speed the engine is providing more thrust requiring less lift from the wings, thus a lower AOA. While at low speed the wings are doing a lot more of the flying and therefore the drag comes into play much more.

But the AOA relative too zero is less then it is while I’m flying right side up and level. So less total AOA (Closer to zero up or down) usually means less drag? And if I have less load on the aircraft as well, it’s gonna go faster? Also unloading means your reducing G on the aircraft. Which in this case, it goes from +1 to -1 all that put together makes it seem like your gonna get an increase in airspeed. Regardless of where the ground is. The unloaded state is apparently canceling out the increased drag resulting in a net increase in airspeed. What we need to determine is: is that the correct behavior for the harrier? I’m not saying it’s not a bug, but let’s figure it out. What’s causing the speed increase, is a problem with the way drag is modeled, or is it an engine issue, ground effect bug..etc. and I’m not saying I don’t believe you either but I’m gonna test the assumption that inverted flight won’t result in a speed increase with the L-39 which is a completed FM and i will report back.

Please see the track the last one is at -1.0Gs more or less, I’m not the best harrier pilot so I’m sure +/- .1Gs is due to me not holding on the VVI on the horizon perfectly. The first time I did it real quick and didn’t save the track anyways, the second time I trimmed it and as long as I’m on the horizon line it’s -1.0Gs and that’s the track I posted.

So the speed increase is because I’m unloaded, are you saying that to fly inverted and level, I should be in 1G flight and that’s the problem??

Post a track

Is your STO Stop staying fully aft? It's interesting that it goes to a specific Nozzle position, I've never encountered an issue like that.

Have you checked your bindings/ran a repair?

Tacview as well Tacview-20200121-152539-DCS-Inverted Harrier Test.zip.zip

This time its closer to -1.0Gs because I did it without stores, what doesn't make sense? Harrier Inverted Flight Test.trk

+1