Wizard_03

The MP group is the most vocal and they only care about features that directly affect their experience. I feel like ED gets a lot of pushback when they try to improve the sim and ask for money to do so because the MP group has a fit. They pulled the exact same crap over the WW2 assets pack when it came out. Never mind the fact that ED took care of all the WW2 backers in the first place. “How dare they charge money for their work!” It’s unbelievable to me, you spend at least 2k dollars just for the rig, maybe another couple hundred for DCS but 10 bucks for art is where we draw the line :doh:

I’m gonna have to actively remember to flare. Can’t just slam into the ground, like hornet. :D

How about ED does a USAF phantom and HB does a USN phantom? :)

Typically formations are centered about a known threat axis with destroyers acting as pickets at intervals of several hundred NMs, however the cruiser usually stays very close to the carrier at all times, along with a single destroyer behind the CV to catch anyone that goes in the drink. But like everything else it depends..

+1

I don't care about YOUR experience, I don't care about other jets or how they perform. I only care about the performance of the F/A-18C Lot 20 with the 402s circa 2005. So unless you personally have experience with that particular platform, none of that matters. In fact, it might even bias your expectations negatively because the hornet is very different from most fighters. This is exactly the way the gun accuracy thread, the take off pitch thread, and JDAM cycle threads went. The point is, It's ED sim and I'm gonna take their side every time unless you can prove them wrong with proof NOT guesses based on your experience. Because they do have access to the correct charts, and they do have access to SMEs who flew the aircraft from that time, and they have done extensive testing, and are a respected business, not some person from the internet. If they say its right, I'll believe its right. So unless your gonna tell us you know more about the jet then they do, then your right this is a waste of time.

Again this 50% you keep mentioning is based on the wrong charts, to begin with, all these variables add up. Not being in ground idle, landing at a high gross, not measuring the ground roll distance right, not using the speed brake or full aft stick, locking the wheels, It all adds up on the ground roll. So at this point it's your word against theirs, because ED has officially stated multiple times that the brakes are accurately represented. It seems like your deliberately ignoring evidence that could contradict your hypothesis.

You doubt and assume but you don't know. Why are you ignoring variables that could effect your results? How can you claim ED is wrong when you don't have the data to back it up?

That’s also the wrong chart, DCS hornet uses the EPEs.

IRL the brakes aren't that effective in the hornet, the tires are bigger, have less grip, and are a lot more inflated when compared with ones on jets designed for field landings. The hornet is able too make field landings but it was designed for the boat, every aspect of it.

To clarify; I meant after the merge and its because you can point your nose wherever you want in the hornet. It directly translates to more weapon employment opportunities, even more still with HOBS missiles. Since I don't necessarily need to be on someones 6 pulling lead for a gun solution, all that EM theory that makes the viper so wonderful is somewhat moot if I can kill it first. In other words missiles are much much more of threat these days then guns, and the hornet has a clear advantage in that regard due to its nose pointing authority. I agree, and yes loaded properly those disadvantages can be drastically minimized. The same thing is conversely true of the F-16, There's a huge difference in performance between a slick F-16 and one properly equipped for a combat mission. Even so the viper is still gonna come out on top but not by a massive margin when we factor in realistic stores configurations. They both just need to be flown to their respective strengths. I would love a F-15C with an ASM.

Thing to remember about the hornet is once you spend your energy, your not going to be able to earn it back very quickly. So if you go for broke on max rate, make sure you can for sure get the kill and no else is around, because it’ll severely limit your follow on options. That being said, low and slow is the hornets game, so minimum radius might be your most effective tool in most situations. But it depends. Personally I try to take fights downstairs as soon as possible, and force an overshoot out of the enemy. Use their acceleration against them. To answer your actual questions, look for the EM charts online (can’t post them) and see if you can find a good way to remember the curves so you can reference the right speed for the right altitude and situation. But 350 to 375 is the magic number for max ITR in most altitudes below 25k

That being said, I'll still take the hornet and its ability to get the first shot off any day of the week. Most of what you mentioned really starts too matter in Winchester situations, which can and do happen for sure. But in today's world of HOBS and HMCS the nose pointing authority of the hornet pays dividends over great STR and high acceleration. Tomcats and Fulcrums have great performance in those aspects too and can seriously out vertical the hornet, but it does them no good when they can be shot at with 9x from any angle. In pairs, up close, the hornet can be a monster if you and your buddy know what your doing and have the right weapons. However in BVR speed is priceless, so all that thrust in a tiny package gives F-16 a big advantage there without a doubt.

This is Blue Bird sign me up!! :D

The systems may be similar but the interface is totally different. However the groundwork laid by the hornet certainly has improved their workflow, and the core sim elements have already been implemented or soon will be, How F-16 interacts with those elements is what needs to be developed. But unlike the hornet they won’t be starting from scratch. So yes I’m sure it’ll be faster, but i don’t think anything can just be copied over from one aircraft to another, pretty sure software development is a bit more complex then that.

Also need fuel BIT and JHMCS alignment implementation so we can do proper cold starts.

Better yet, lets just get ATFLIR in the game then we can use the LPOD at the boat, and have full NAVFLIR functionality.

Love the cockpit textures, looks very realistic and immersive, and what I would expect of a typical NAVY fighter in heavy use out at sea. Just my opinion of course, but I think they nailed it, and to me its arguably the most well done cockpit in the game.

Press data on the attack radar page and unbox declutter.

Can’t wait to be told where to go on the deck by the AI! :)

I can see it, because if your trimming in AUTO your changing the bias from 1G to whatever you set it too, so if it's +3 or whatever the system thinks you want 3G at neutral stick. Even though your setting that on the ground; because your in AUTO the FCS thinks it's airborne and those settings are retained after WOW goes off. It doesn't know what you want, only what you tell it. So if you trim while in AUTO on the ground the position indicators won't move at all but the computer is still registering trim input for AUTO mode. So once your airborne those settings immediately take effect, which wouldn't be a huge problem IRL because you could just trim it back real quick, but because of the slow rate in DCS it seems like your stuck pitching, but in reality it just takes forever to manually trim back to 1G because of the DCS bug. So long in fact that you might assume it's not working at all, I took off with +3 and it took about a minute of forward trim to get back to 1G at level :D As too coming to a full stop, I would guess some sort of reset is triggered, but that's also interesting.

I'm gonna say what we have is realistic, because every single one of those TOs the pilot had a pretty significant pitch moment, but the difference is they all used very little positive stab trim. Nowhere close to +12 and they had much more control. So if we come back to DCS; people are hot starting or auto starting AND setting TO trim (or more likely its set for them by the game.) Then they attempt an AUTO flaps TO and they experience an extreme pitch moment. Seems reasonable to me. If you don't set TO trim or just use a little positive stab trim and keep the jet light, you'll still experience high pitching just like the demo teams, but it's MUCH more manageable, and in line with those videos. *Edit just tested in game, and my suspicions are correct the pitch up is definitely associated with trim setting, however once airborne it is very hard to trim the FCS back to 1G and that is because the trim rate is so low, and that IS a confirmed bug. So don't use crazy high pitch trim when attempting this because It'll take forever to get back to 1G Or just use the correct settings per the guidelines. :)

What is your trim setting, in each of these cases? I think the reason it pitches up is because your setting TO trim with AUTO. That demo pilot said he used only +3 on stabs. Way below TO trim, see lex’s last post. I’ll bet anything thats the problem.

If that’s the case I’m thinking it has to do with pitch trim settings.

I say Lpod :)