Rolds

Your math may overstate the "leak rate". On S3 math, I agree. I think the figures should be added for the F18C to determine how much it gains. Connected fuel gain rate=transfer rate less burn rate, therefore transfer rate=burn rate plus fuel gain (which is better thought of as net fuel gain rate). I imagine this won't matter to the coders. The issue is probably going to be something simple like the transfer rates are hard-coded for each aircraft and independent of the aircraft type on the other side of the transfer. Simple to understand I mean, that may be difficult to solve.

This isn't really a bug but there isn't anywhere to make a request. There is this old thread where the topic of having different fusing options for the harrier was discussed: At present, the PR and OP fuse settings both cause the Mk20 to burst at 1200' AGL based on my testing (which just involved dropping a couple and reviewing the results with TAC view). It would be nice if we could at least set different burst heights (even if this is only available on the ground like other weapons settings). 1200' results in a pretty wide dispersion of the bomb-lets. Another issue with the 1200' AGL burst height is that if you are trying to loft bomb something, the weapon will function right away if you release while still below 1200'. Perhaps the topic of Mk-20 fusing could be re-opened with ED?

I just got the map yesterday and I had the same problem. There is at least one strip across the entrance to the San Carlos bay which is only 3 feet deep, and the depth is quite shallow in other areas around the bay also. Even the little higgens boat cannot seem to cross this area to enter the bay. It seems the depth should be increased in this area.

I just had a flight where George kept yawing about 30 degrees left and right of the commanded heading in a hover and never damped out, I eventually crashed the helicopter out of frustration.

Sometimes when they are heading for the tanker, the AI aircraft fly in nearly the exact same place and clip into one another, see photo and track. F18 AI form glitch when refueling.trk

OP I have a thought, I was finding my bombs were long by about 300' similar to yours but I was still pulling when I released them, which apparently isn't the correct procedure. Try unloading the plane so it is at 1g at weapon release. To put it another way, pull up to your desired release angle then wait for the release cue to come down to the velocity vector rather than continuing to pull up to meet it. The miss long may be because the firing solution doesn't recompute fast enough if you are still pulling up.

I re-ran the test with @Exorcet script in place. In this test F18 fuel at the start of tanking was 3,177 lbs and at the end was 11,676lbs for an increase of 8,499 lbs. In all cases the script output agreed with the hornet in cockpit fuel gauge very closely. At the start of refueling the S3 fuel from the script read 14,105lbs and at the end it read 1,048lbs for a decrease of 13,057 lbs. In other words the S3 lost 4,558 lbs more than it gave the hornet, and it is not reasonable that it burned that much fuel itself during the refueling. The S3 then returned to the carrier, did a case1 and landed with only 252lbs remaining. Of course there is the possibility the script is wrong but I don't think so. To test this, I had the S3 airstart with 3% internal fuel and watched it, and sure enough when fuel reached zero according the the script, the crew ejected. I think there is some problem where the fuel outflow rate from the S3 is higher than the rate it is going into the tanking aircraft, and the difference is just being lost. EDIT - Attached is a track you can play around with which includes the fuel script. In this case tanking began with 2,806lbs in the hornet and 14,290lbs in the S3. It ended with 11,330lbs in the hornet and 1,144lbs in the S3. The hornet gained 8,524lbs while the S3 lost 13,146lbs. S3B fuel rate issue.trk

Hi Flappie, EDIT - THERE IS STILL SOMETHING WRONG SEE NEXT POST I am re-running the test. I notice a couple of things before I start. The S-3 can now carry 15,183lbs of fuel and its weight when full of fuel is 41,833lbs per the mission editor, an increase over the 12,126lbs fuel weight and 38,775 lbs total aircraft weight I noted in my original post. I also noticed that the tanker now starts with 80% fuel whereas before I had it set to 100%. Looking at other missions I made prior to the most recent patch, it appears all S3 tankers are now starting in the air with 80% but I almost certainly placed them as air starts with 100% fuel. People who want to maximize the tankers' fuel load might want to recheck old missions. Re-running the original flight, I dumped to 2,400 then tanked. The tanker refueled me to 11,260 then retracted the drogue, so this time I think it gave me about 8,860lbs. That is a definite improvement over the original situation. This may mean the bug is squashed, but my method of testing is crude compared to @Exorcet script. I looked at that script and it is beyond me but that looks like the right tool to test this.

I did a few lofting runs last weekend and also found them landing long, I'll do a few more tonight to provide a track.

I want to be able to offset JSOW from a target point a relatively small distance to launch two (or more?) at a time at the same target area. Is the UFC O/S option in the TOO screen supposed to provide this functionality? Is that a WIP item? I am also aware of the waypoint offset problem which itself would be a useful thing to have here as that might give a workaround, and I hope that is fixed soon.

Could F18 (and F16 and A10C) please get the option of mounting empty external tanks, similar to what other modules (F14, F15E, AV8B, JF17, Mirage 2000C, Mirage F1) have?

Oh dear, this is too much. I just want a triggered action so units can say "they're shooting at us!" and stuff like that. Your example is more complicated than any mission I've made!

I want to make a mission where tanks are in cover until they shoot. My idea was to have them set to invisible (which makes them invisible to other AI, not to players) and then have a triggered action to AI task push>do command>invisible off, when they fire. This would be useful for simulating an ambush, which at present isn't easy to do given the AI's efficiency in spotting. My problem is that there doesn't seem to be a "unit fired" or "unit has shot" condition. Since the game log registers each unit shot event, I imagine this would be fairly easy to implement? A "part of group has shot" would also be a useful condition.

Still happening on December 4, 2023. 312 days since Flappie bumped the report. OHP class damage model bug.trk