Wizard_03

Nothing here is misinformation...unlike scientists we don’t need to prove anything we say. Everyone in UFO community uses the honor system. So you can take this information with ZERO salt.

The performance charts from the above mentioned document do not apply to DCS hornet. Ours has the EPE 402 engines. The document listing it’s performance charts is not publicly available. That one is for the 400 engines.

I don’t know, I’m learning so much about nothing here. :D I had no idea fusion is lie.

No worries :) I don’t understand it completely either, I thought this was a Spanish hornet modification but evidently ED has found some evidence that USMC hornets can/do use it in that configuration, I’m assuming.

It requires an adapter, if they want too allow this option they will need to model the adapter. That goes without saying.

Genuinely concerned about where he was getting all this new and exciting information on the hornet that completely contradicts everything I know about it. Then I discovered this thread...and everything makes sense now. :)

Well you don’t HAVE too...but you certainly could :)

The only time I can see a benefit of using it over the Lpod for targeting is gonna be in a weather/smoke situation. The resolution of SAR is nowhere near an actual image of the target. You almost need to already know it’s location to be able to pick it out of a radar picture.

JTAC/FAC or pre-planned intelligence is gonna be the ideal method for obtaining that data IRL. In the DCS environment your right though, it should give you more precision at range then the Lpod. Which could be useful for our purposes Same way you can do it with just the HUD right now.

It’s an interesting capability for sure. But as an active sensor it’s not always desirable in emcon situations, and the availability of Lpods make it somewhat moot anyway. The HMD dose not need surface radar for that either, It can use it but it’s not essential. Don’t get me wrong I’m excited to see EDs implementation of it too, but it’s just not gonna be a huge game changer for AG.

Other then harpoon attacks Surface radar is almost never used IRL. The lpod is gonna be a better choice in pretty much every scenario. There’s no advantage to using the surface modes over what we already have in game now. EA or not withstanding. It’s hardly the aircrafts heart and soul of ground pounding.

Even at slow speed, if you jam the pedals around the tires are gonna slide. It’s a big heavy jet with relatively small wheels, in a tricycle configuration. NWS has to use enough hydraulic pressure to turn the wheels under the jets weight. Think If you could turn a steering wheel in a car as fast as you can pedal turn. You probably could create a similar situation. This behavior seems reasonable IMHO.

Makes sense, your in a quasi drift at this point. Need to be very slow and smooth with Hi.

:)

Well according to you, it can’t be the stores loading manuals, because they only abide by doctrinal rules..so if we can’t trust the manuals why can’t we have other features that they don’t allow for?

Ok so how do we know what capabilities the aircraft has?

Is it because they aren’t permitted in the aircraft their modeling?

So how come they don’t model python or CFTs too? The aircraft can carry them...

So ED should model weapon configurations that weren’t permitted for the specific aircraft their modeling. Feels like we’re in a logic loop

Because the documentation doesn’t permit the loadouts your describing

I’m saying we’ll have to throw them out the window to give you guys what you want

the stores loading manuals are written by the operators not the manufacturer

Why listen to documentation? It’s written by the same people that come up with the doctrine.

The aircraft dose the USAF/ANG doesn’t are you telling me that doctrine matters now?

Why not allow for Israeli weapons or Greek ones too, how about CFTs? where does it end? Laser guns and photon torpedoes?? If we don’t nail down a specific time, operator, and DOCTRINE it becomes a video game instead of simulator.