shon

I have a mod so that the track does not record the mission and thus reduce space, so it is not useful to upload it, sorry Flappie.

That's right, all the cargo ships were right off the shores inside the port of Bander-Abbas, on the Persian Gulf. All the ships sunk by me or my leader kept showing up on the datalink camera of the AGM-84E of the next release, with the risk of trying to sink a cargo ship that was already destroyed and that did not have to continue to be displayed. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/780261819477524490/1085616298731511818/Screen_230315_181714.jpg

I don't know if it's just a Multi-Heatring error, but in the MP mission I just did, with 25 pilots, previously sunk ships (Dry Cargo Ship) are shown floating and undamaged in the camera via datalink of a second launched AGM-85E (F/A-18C). In Tacview, in the real-time impact warning window, and on the results screen itself, those cargo ships appeared as perfectly destroyed.

Thank you Swift. I tried what you indicate at the time, but I was surprised that it is very difficult to obtain variation in lateral degrees, a lot, with a wide margin of time pressing the trim, very different from when you trim the nose compensator from 12° to 18°, much faster than the other. That's why I was surprised and asked a real pilot how they did it. It is true that the Spanish F18 have had many updates. I don't know if one of them was this. But it is also true what you say that the Natops does not indicate anything other than what you indicate to trim laterally. However, it would be great if in this aspect it were like the Spanish F18, since it would avoid you doing manual calculations that I don't think it happens in real life, but I suppose real pilots will have a software or at least a simple Excel that calculates it from automatic way...

Hi Tholozor, thanks for replaying. My source is a real active Hornet pilot in the Spanish Air Force who I asked about this question. I am sure that if ED has contacted with real pilots as announced, they will know about this topic. It is possible that the version of the Spanish F18 that I have received information about, specifically Hornets based in Gando in the Canary Islands that are about to be retired, are a different version from the one developed by ED. In any case, let's be specific and precise: as you indicated, we have some tables in Natops to calculate the asymmetric trim. Perfect. So please, can someone tell us how we must get into the plane those values obtained? Does it really have to be done with several presses on the trim without you having any reference value to follow, unlike what happens when you trim the nose that you can manually go from 12° to the value you need in a precise way? So many tables and so many values so that later on the plane you don't have the precision to enter that data??

In reality, on the external F18 fuselage is configurated the load settings so that the system can automatically trims the aircraft by simply pressing the T/O Trim buttom before taking off. The above does not correspond to what was programmed by ED in his F18, taking away a lot of realism in such a delicate maneuver as a takeoff is, with an asymmetric load, having to manually press the lateral trim without being able to calculate in real detail how much increase you are applying to it because the numbers that appear in the FCS do not accurately reflect the trim presses made, but rather the system adjusts automatically for keeping the aircraft balanced when precisely it is not for carrying asymmetrical load. Does ED plan to correct this, so that FCS recognizes the asymmetric load at takeoff and therefore the T/O Trim Reset takes into account automatically, as it happens in reality, all the parameters for a correct take off?? Thanks.

I confirm that the issue continues to reproduce only when turbulence is activated. ED, can you please confirm that you are dealing with this bug? I mention it because in the title of the post I read "need track replay", and I don't know if you are still waiting for someone to upload a track for you to start looking at the matter... If so, I have no problem uploading one, but from the answers of the other users it seems that everyone already knows about this bug... Thanks.

Does anyone know what is the lua file that allows to change the range of the SAMs threats in the SA, if this is possible? Thank you.

The same in F18... snakeyes.trk

Well, if it is not modeled, then ED it could have been avoided to incorporate a realistic ECM that blocks the radar and that is why in the real life the pilots do not go alone but in groups supporting each other ... But I am hopeful that ED have done so. Let's see what Bignewy says ...

In real life the AN/ALQ-162 automatically scans for threat signals, identifies threat, and generates countermeasures, providing automatic radar jamming that invalidate the launch and tracking of enemy radars, therefore "blinds" the SAM to any target it wants to acquire, not only the plane that carries the pod. This is that I don't know if ED has modeled it correctly.

It is correct that the jammer blanks the radar, so, in real life, one activates the jammer and another fires (shooter-cover). The shooter is protected by the ECM of his partner ... Bignewy, did you take that into account in the simulator? ECM protects more than one flight? Thanks .

I'm glad it helped you. The edited lua is loaded only once with the JSGME, with the flares and chaff configuration that I like the most, and I already forgot to configure anything in the cockpit.

It is about if someone knows where the lua files are located that allow editing different aspects of the F18 systems, in order not to waste time in the cockpit, that is, simulate the loading of a cartridge by editing a lua file that allows me to permanently leave the systems to my liking. I have already found the lua that allows me to configure the countermeasures, so that I can perfectly enter each flight with the configuration that I like, and if it helps you, tell you that in the panic button I have configured to eject a single flare (since we will never release them all, which is what it has by default), allowing me in the fence-in to check that I have the countermeasures system perfectly activated by means of the release test of a single flare. The path where the lua file is located is DCS\Mods\aircraft\FA-18C\Cockpit\Scripts\TEWS\device\CMDS_ALE47.lua But instead I can't find other luas, like for example the helmet mode (JHMCS). Does anyone know the file that should be edited, so that in the cockpit the helmet mode shows the values ​​that I like without having to enter the HMD page and modify them? It is therefore a matter of finding luas that allow us to configure systems that we repeatedly use on each flight, and that we must modify each time in the cabin, so that they are collected in this thread for use by all of us. Thanks a lot.

Thank you guys so much :thumbup:.

I use it, but flying in offline and without awacs, the red hostile marking appears within 10 miles.

Perfect, well understood. Thank you very much for the complete explanation.

Thanks a lot, QuiGon. Because those two sensors that you indicate are necessary, do you mean sensors from different planes even if they are the same, for example two IFF from two F18? No NCTR, both IFF. Or ​should it always be two different sensors, one an IFF, and the other, from the same plane or another, a NCTR? ​ Thank you very much again.

Is it normal that the IFF interrogation does not show hostile until I am within 10 miles? Impossible to do a BVR combat properly ... Could it be a bug that is going unnoticed because we all use the Awacs?? Of course LTWS and everything are activated by default.

Just to confirm that in CAT III there is the same random error as in CAT I when Marshall confuses your number with that of another flight and logically assigns the same stack altitude to both!! This module is not "flyable" in Multiplayer, and I am reluctant to use third-party scripts. I look forward to the moment when the SC goes to release, or at least It get an update, with not only briefing rooms and other cosmetic additions because the main essence of the SC should be their communications, and so on it is exposed in its manual. In fact, I bought it hoping that one day what the product would be manifested in relation to its comms will be fulfilled, and also some "puppets" that move. At least this second is already well done.

Communications have many bugs and programming yet to be developed. If for example you had made a bolter, the menu would show you "Inbound" again. But if you follow the missed aproach circuit and rejoin again the ICLS, the LSO keeps giving you instructions .... Incongruent. Try with another mission. Perhaps yours is a specific failure that will not reproduce again ...

75th-VFS-Striker is right. The warhead of a Harpoon is almost twice that of a Maverick, but its lethality is practically the same or event less (!??). Surely there must be an explanation, but after so long it is hard for me to understand that new weapons continue to be developed but instead the existing ones are not corrected... It is not classified information, it is pure logic, more warhead, more damage ...

Hi ED. I hope everyone is in good health. They have been difficult months, and I hope that you can get back to work with strength. In last update I've seen that, except for cosmetic aspects, in the SC no important communications arrangements have been developed, specifically in the multiplayer Case I: it does not recognize flights "holding hangs", it confuses the callsign, it establishes the Signal Charlie not by order of arrival, it does not authorize new Signal Charlie until the previous one is completely landed on deck ... Well, everything already explained in my first post. I read not long ago that ED handles data that the SP is the majority use of this simulator, and that worries me because I do not know if it is given due importance to the MP. I would simply like to know, if possible, an estimated date to fix all these errors, or at the very least, if ED recognizes them as such so as not to reach false and unpleasant expectations. Finally, suggest that the changes in the release do not take so long. Once it is accepted as valid that beta modules jump to release, it should not take so long for the improvements to arrive because after all, it is still a beta. Thanks.

Hi, Sierra99. Yes, both planes on the same flight. In fact in SA I saw my winmang with the letter "A", and that can only be if in the editor they are in the same flight.

Dear ED: With the sole purpose of collaborating in helping to have a better module, I present below all the errors that arose in the flight that I made yesterday in multiplayer in the release version, with a friend. 1. We were a simple flight of two F18C (# 1 and # 2) in CAT1. When # 1 made the first communication with the Carrier, on the screen the answer that # 1 could read was addressed to him and only to him despite being the same flight that # 2 and therefore susceptible to being "holding hands". 2. Despite being # 1 who contacted mother, and being able to read on the screen that mother was addressing him by his side number, a surprised flight # 2 saw on his screen that mother answered indicating his own side number. That is, only flight # 1 contacted with mother, but the program responded to both, # 1 and # 2, with their own side numbers. 3. Later when # 2 contacted mother, he received a correct answer with his side number, and flight # 1 also saw the correct sid number of # 2 on screen. 4. Flight # 1 entered the carrier pattern first, resulting in a bolter. At that moment the program was broken, because, despite communicating "bolter, bolter", the communications menu that # 1 could see in his screen had returned to its initial status in which the option to contact the Carrier "inbound" appeared again. 5. Flight # 2 was unable to trap because the program told him that "there was an aircraft on the runway! " (or similar). 6. Flight # 1 tried to reset their comms and go through the whole communication procedure again, but as of "see you at 10" it never received a new "Signal Charlie". 7. Flight # 2 reset its communications and was able to receive a new "Signal Charlie" and final communications in the groove.