amalahama

Hi, In the Hornet roadmap, it's indicated that the INS and GPS simulation has been completed. But the INS modeling in the hornet is very lacking, INS fix methods are not present (even if in GPS-denied missions the INS would drift) and the DMS also lacks functionalities like the option to pan around the map. Can we expect some additional features in the INS modeling in the future? In the F-16 for example, various INS fix methods have been implemented. Regards

I have the feeling that the viper is in a more finished state and with less bugs, but also the hornet has a number of advanced features that the viper doesn't have. But overall I think the hornet is a better choice to invest your time in, but be ready to some frustration with bugs and incomplete features

The de-synchronization in moving targets make sense as the Hornet doesn't have a Handoff function like the Viper. In fact, for static targets some misalignments should also be perceived, needing a final fine manual adjustment on the target, specially at long distances where the hot spot is small. Alignment is perfect by default in Hornet so this manual fine adjustement is not necessary. Mavericks boresight can also be adjusted in flight like in the Viper to improve alignment between TGP and the Mav, but for whatever reason ED has decided to not implement this functionality.

I absolutely believed that PF zones could be transmitted through the DL, but Wags video didn't show it. So, can we expect to have the option to send through the net lines and zones, or that's not applicable on the Apache version we're getting?

I doubt it

HARM's unrealistic angular accuracy in the Hornet is known by ED and promised to be revisited at some point, ED time

Yeah it absolutely looks like a bug, specially if that keeps happening even when the radar has switched to AG mode

Why are IFF and countermeasures going to be simplified in game?

That's correct in the Hornet but it's not in the Viper

Exactly, when exact coordinates of the target are available, only PP would get the best CEP, since TOO relies on the imperfect aircraft capability of geolocate the reference point. If the CEP differences between one mode and another were modeled in DCS would be great. MAybe a topic for the wishlist

Are MSI improvements also included in this "Radar refactoring" task?

For delivery of high drag ordinance under strong cross winds I can see AUTO becoming more appropriate, since CCIP pipper will probably offset in excess, maybe out of HUD FoV, making aiming kinda funky

I ond't understand your point? You followed the ASL, the bomb dropped at the exact moment, you scored the hit. Where is the issue?

Call Boeing with your suggestions to imporve Hornet HMI Regards

That makes no sense and unless you provide some evidence I wouldn't trust that data

Well theoretically Auto + CPL = FD (flight director) delivery mode isn't it

Has this bug been fixed in latest OB?

So in the video it can be seen that FLIR and RWR contacts can be correlated. Does this mean that FLIR can be pointed to an RWR emitter?

Although I'm absolutely happy with BS3, I think you made a very valid point. Nowhere, neither in the shop page or in the official documentation, it's mentioned that BS3 new features are fictional and non-existing in real life. Since DCS mantra is "as real as it gets" I think it's fair to at least create awareness to the potential buyer that this product deviates even slightly from the regular addon full fidelity policy

Thanks! I was not aware that ATFLIR had this option; I'm just familiar with the Litening integration in the RL aircraft. In this case it will rock to have it some day in DCS

I don't think your statement is correct. The Litening cannot automatically look for targets, it's not that 'smart', it needs to be manually (or via radar) pointed to the boogie and then perform a contrast gate lock to track it.

I'm hopeful that eventually we will get updates on the TAD display, specially when the Mission Cartridge Utility is out.

Hi @BIGNEWY It's difficult to find direct proper evidence, but I actually got some info that might be useful. In the TAC-000 Harrier manual, which share many commonalities with the Hornet avionics, it explains in detail what happen when STEP is pressed. The Maverick circuitry is reset and the camera is boresighted, cancelling any lock that the missile may have at that point. This is the current behavior of our hornet, so I would lend to think that current implementation is right and the F-16 may have some additional circuitry in the store management system to keep two missiles locked at the same time. In fact, the manual also adds that the QTY value has no effect, and the missile can only be launched single Best regards

It's a fighter plane, not a 737 Best regards

Hi there, I just did a quick check and, opposite to the F-16C which does maintain the lock when stepping between missiles, in the F/A-18C the lock is instantaneously dropped when stepping into another missile. Since lock is done by the missile seeker and not by Hornet's MC, it's quite likely that the correct behavior is that lock are kept even if pilot select another missile for the attack. This would allow effective multi-target attacks in one pass with the Maverick, without using the cumbersome markpoint method (just aim each missile independently and then launch in ripple)