Wizard_03

IRL you wouldn't need to rely on NCTR as much as we do in DCS, other surveillance assets are going to give you a positive ID way before you get close enough for a NCTR print. Between that, IFF, RWR correlation and just general pre-mission intelligence gathering efforts, you're going to have pretty clear idea of whats coming at you well before NCTR is going to matter, in the context of ROE doctrine. So I'm sure all that played a role in the decision to not have it on the already cluttered up attack radar page.

ICLS and ILS require completely different equipment, they aren't just in different frequency bands, they require totally different communication sets.

Maybe we shouldn't use them on cat shots then, if they add so much drag. There also appears to be a problem with the FCS because every time I get slow the flaps come out, if they add drag that could be really dangerous too.

Interesting, that must be why they’re called high lift devices, because they add drag.

Regardless flaps add lift not drag, that’s what they are there for. Reasoning that keeping them lowered helps slow you down is wrong. If anything they increase stopping distance because they reduce brake effectiveness. Not that it really makes a difference in the hornet, but flaps are flaps, not speed brakes. Fact is the hornet has a long ground roll in general because it’s meant for trapping not landing. The tires specifically are way more inflated then ground based aircraft, the brakes aren’t suited for long sustained applications, and it’s directional instability in cross winds makes aerobraking risky. It’s just built for the boat not the field.

No they increase lift, with flaps up the wings create more downforce, putting more pressure on the tires thus making the braking more effective. It’s actually required in some jets in the game like the F-86F and F-5E that you bring the flaps back up before getting on the brakes

"what you mean its too small, just slap a giant gun on it, there you go, CAS platform." :D

They let us know the updates would slow down because the easy stuff is out of the way the rest of the hornets features are extremely complex, and or brand new to the sim/require the implementation of new technology. So there’s no delays, because they let us know/never promised anything to begin with.

:) the anticipation is building..

The hands down most effective fighter in the game and arguably the most successful fighter concept of all time is not as iconic as the flanker, an aircraft who to this day still can’t match the eagle in range, speed, firepower, weapon system, radar, ect. Even though it was conceived for that express purpose. I strongly disagree. The F-15 is still in production almost a decade after it’s replacement ended its own procurement, I think that qualifies it as iconic. It needs an ASM, we can’t let the the turkeys and bugs win every fight.

First off; they have been great at communication, at least weekly but sometimes even daily posts about it's status. Never seen any other module in this game get that kind of treatment, ever. The hornet development has been the absolute gold standard for communication in DCS World. Second; They have never set a release date for any open beta module, ever. Why? because stuff gets done when it gets done. They gave us an estimate on the Targeting Pod, and it ended up not being realistic, and they told us that too. Tough, sometimes they don't find out about blocking bugs till day of release, that's how this kind of thing works. :) There is a great comment above yours about how most of us would like things done right rather then fast, and in software development you simply can't have both. I would probably stop playing if they started emphasizing speed over build quality, and I'm quite sure others would too. What ED needs from us is patience and support to get these features finished and shipped out to us.

It most certainly is implemented :) at least last time I checked. Last OB update broke a few things like AB effects thou so not sure its still working but it was before.

Hahaha :D

Yeah I don’t like pushing buttons either, hopefully they can implement thought controls like on Firefox..

It would degrade performance if it was mounted on the wing, because it would produce an asymmetric loading which is a no no for ACM therefore you'd have to put it on 5 in place of a tank, which means wing tanks instead, also a no no for ACM, however the pod on the center station wouldn't really hinder performance. (the center tank is rated for 9Gs and the drag penalty is acceptable for that kind of combat I'm sure the pods are too) but by having it on 5 you'd end up in a situation in which you'd need to pickle the tanks and risk running out of fuel. Not a very smart way to deploy the aircraft, at least from an offensive counter air standpoint, used defensively its a different story. But it all comes down to how the jet is used. That's probably why nations with less diverse air forces that depend on the F-16s versatility a lot more, opted for onboard ECM equipment. In any case way if the mission allows for it, you'd probably want to take the pod with you. Otherwise your going to be at a disadvantage in the EW environment.

Anyone know what that store is on station 5?

The USAF doesn't use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, while other operators do. The US F-16s are almost exclusively used as a SEAD/Strike platform in actual combat. In the counter air role having external pods becomes a performance concern, Because they would need to be mounted on the center-line station for symmetry reasons taking the place of a fuel tank that now has to be mounted on the wings, and then needs to be jettisoned before combat (whereas a center-line tank wouldn't), creating fuel problems. Having the ECM built in simplifies stores loading for those kinds of missions.

I know, but I'm saying GBU-54s make the hypothetical ability to have different weapons on the same rack moot. They wouldn't have taken the time update the OFP to allow that even if it was physically possible on the rack because GBU-54s give you even more flexibility.

The MC doesn't support that capability (multiple weapon types on the same station), not sure if the rack itself physically does either but I wouldn't think so. Wouldn't be realistic or necessary: But This gives you the exact flexibility your wanting. :)

Getting harder and harder for Pierre and his disciples to find things to complain about. :)

For some reason fighter jets specifically are huge targets of sensationalism on the Internet. More so then any other weapon systems IMO. Hard to find credible sources for sure.

They also cheat by using heavier bob weights for more precise inputs in their sticks. ;)

The model viewer has all of the switch animations in it even ones that aren’t used by the game. However the cockpit art definitely needs an update as it’s been around since before edge. Also they never made any training missions for it; unlike the other FC3 jets, (like the Russian ones which we know for a fact will never get an ASM) So that all that tells me they could be waiting to one day create a full module out of it. I think once the viper and hornet are out of the way they might return to it, Who knows. They are getting much faster at getting aircraft out so maybe it’s not as big as a risk anymore to update it. I could understand them not touching it back when modules took 5+ years to come out, but things have evidently changed. And it’s a pretty iconic jet I’m certain it would sell, especially if the F-15E that’s coming out has the earlier engines.

Is this where we come to panic??

Not sure what checklist your referring too but that’s the procedure for the pre-flight FCS ibit. (Assuming the FCS successfully reset on the first push of the button).