SCU

It seems that this was already fixed as seen in some of the latest videos.. And I just found out that audio tones for RWR was implemented just yesterday, at least partially. All that remains now, I think, is for RWR contacts to show on the HUD.

Seen it. I assumed he meant the standard sounds like the altitude & master cautions and betty sounds. I always thought the RWR tones are more secretive/hard to get, like the A-10 (which has the same RWR as the F-16). Anyhow, I hope someone from ED can confirm if they will implement the real sounds and hud symbology or not :smilewink:.

First off, let me say you've done such a phenomenal job in the F-18 so far ED & Belsimtek, you really did outdo yourself, good job guys :thumbup:. Now to my question: Does ED plan to model the correct tones for the RWR or are they going to use the stock RWR sounds in DCS? There has been a thread that discussed this, and there were some interesting stuff mentioned there. Also do they plan to model the RWR indications in the HUD too? Sorry if this has already been mentioned or answered, I couldn't find anything about this anywhere.

Interesting idea. I think that ED should definitely look into that.

Is there supposed to be a steering dot, to get a good angle on target, in the F-18?

Guess it's worth its own thread in the Wish List sub-forum.

This. Plus I hope ED will reconsider the post stall behavior of the A-10C, among very few other flight characteristics that need tweaking. Before we ask for a new A-10 version guys, we should instead hope for a remastered, current version of the A-10C first.

The last stream was EPIC, the Persian Gulf looks oh so picturesque, and the Hornet looks so damn realistic, just plain awesome, very high levels of attention to detail has been clearly put into this jet. And, maybe this is just me, but I could watch Wags attempt to line up all day, none of that "bore us with this" stuff you were saying man ;) (not kidding).

There is something that is relatively minor that I made a thread about a while ago.. It's about the HUD FPM limit, which CptSmiley tweaked a bit but is still not completely fixed.

From the videos and information provide on the DCS Hornet so far, it seems that ED will make this module on a whole other level of realism.. even compared to the other DCS modules. They have paid attention to very small details in this one, not saying ED doesn't do that with the other modules, but man does the hornet look so good & realistic. Of-course we will know for sure when it's out, and don't doubt that ED won't disappoint us.

I don't exactly get what you mean by that. If you mean that we don't know where the VV is on the HUD in the videos when it's HUD limited, well in the stall test video the whole HUD projection is shown, including the VV limit point, but in the DACT air to air video (black & white one), the VV's limit is not shown but in a 90° bank it can be clearly deduced by looking at the pitch ladder being limited (because it's caged to the also limited VV). See attached image; in both images the FPM is HUD limited, but notice the different distances between the pitch ladder and the lower left info block, in the RL image & the in-game image. In DCS, when the VV is limited and you're in a 90° bank, the pitch ladder markings nearly touches the lower left info block. While in real life, with the same previous conditions, the pitch ladder markers are lower by about 2.5° than in DCS, and hence the VV has a lower limit by about the same distance.

True, but remember that HUDs are projected so that they seem that they're at infinity, so I think that should mean that it doesn't matter how far or close you are to it in the cockpit, it would always look the same size. Hmm, it's an interesting hypothesis but I don't see anything that might indicate that the upper info are mis-located; remember it is all in reference to the Jet's waterline, which is supposedly fixed and accurately modeled & there's nothing to indicate that any of that is wrongly implemented. IMO the only thing that's wrong in the HUD is the VV's lower limit, otherwise it's an almost spot on HUD as the real thing, only a couple other things maybe are wrong, but I can't confirm, which includes: the HUD info should go down a bit with landing configuration when gear goes down (which would be pretty cool if implemented), and like other really minor unnoticeable stuff, perhaps.

As I said that I did some mistakes as I did those images hastily, in the last image I shouldn't have said to move the 20 degree pitch rung below, it should stay at the same place as it represents the current location of this degree... What I was really trying to illustrate there was what it would be like if the VV was HUD limited at its real location along with its pitch rung, just to show what it might have looked like, you know? But yeah, it's absolutely wrong to have those red pitch ladders there!1

No no, I didn't say anything about altering the pitch ladder; what I wrote in parenthesis was just me expressing my confusion about the markings on the real F-15 pitch ladder, they increment in a really weird way that I don't understand. I noticed this as I was using the ruler tool to get the length between two pitch ladder 'rungs' in the black & white image (first one I linked); the markings increment by 10 starting from the 30 degree marking, it basically goes like this: 0 (Horizon), 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60... and so on, and that goes both ways: above & below the horizon. It's modeled in DCS in the same way as well.

Was just in the process of typing this as you replied GG^ I played a little bit with Photoshop to figure out what's the approximate difference between the FPM limit in reality and the one in-game and attached below is what I got so far. Note that these images are just food for thought and are not intended to be an accurate representation of how it's supposed to be in-game; I'm just trying to make a comparison. First image is from: Second image: Third image: Fourth image: (The 1st shot got me baffled when I looked at it in PS, I noticed the pitch ladder changes its increments after the 30 degrees mark, where it increases in 10's, while keeping the same distances!!, instead of the normal 5 increments that were the case from 0 to 30, and from 0 to 90 in every other jet HUD I've seen.. It's how it's modeled in-game as well! It's probably my poor understanding of how pitch ladder scales work or something ;)) I know I probably made mistakes in my assumption, so I'd like to know what other players might think of this, and maybe if I'm lucky someone who actually works on the model who has some actual info. Any thoughts?

Hello folks. I was watching a couple of video of an F-15 HUD recording, and while I know that the F-15 in DCS is not a full fidelity model, but I couldn't help but notice that the actual F-15 in the videos have a lower FPM (Flight Path Marker / Velocity Vector) limitation in the HUD.. I always thought the FPM getting HUD limited too early when landing the Eagle in DCS to be a little quirky, and from the videos of the actual jet I saw, it looks like the FPM modeled in-game gets limited a little bit 'earlier' than what is supposed to be, if you get my drift. If that is the case, isn't it worth tweaking it in-game? How much work would it take to change the lower limit for the VV? Can a tweak like this affect other systems in the model? Cheers :thumbup:.

It is probably not exactly the same in real life as the videos show, but there is definitely something there. I believe there is an actual F/A-18 former pilot in this forum who I hope would give some insight as to how this effect is different in real life than in videos.

Just want to throw it out here, the videos from E3 on Wags' Youtube channel have all the players that are trying out the F/A-18 play using VR headsets, and it seems it's already significantly optimized in those videos.

I'd be very surprised if the Hornet is released by February or March, so I think it's a good bet that we won't get a release before that. It looks like we're getting an April-May release it seems. So i'd say you're most probably fine if you hold on a month or two, I hope you can make it :thumbup:. @Delareon, Have you read Wagner's reply on this? there are many more factors that contribute to the price than just the complexity.

Yep same here. My memory is fuzzy but I think it was said early on that the advanced carriers will come with Straits of Hormuz, I don't know perhaps I was dreaming :P. Don't even know where to search, will wait & see if someone who knows better can confirm either way.

Wait a minute, aren't the new carriers going to be a part of SoH?

This!!1 I'd say it's worth much more than $60/80, I just don't get what these other (minority btw) people are complaining about, and that's coming for someone who's still saving up for a new rig and working with like a 2009 era technology pc atm..

I agree with this 100%. Here's a , not a pilot, but an ATC woman doing an amazing job :).

Hmm, I would agree with you here if this was a fast moving jet, but this is the warthog; it's low & it's slow, it gets near this "razor edge" regime all the time, it's just that there are many timid users around here, but also many that are on the line with me, seen some posts from the early stages of A-10C, there were loads of people who made my observation but it seems that this kind of observation is destined for either overlooking or plain refusal.. But yah, apart from the early stages and some obserers here are there, it seems I'm the only one intrested in this near-stall region, which is very weird for me, I imagined the vast majority of those who play A-10 to notice this thing and jump on my wagon, especially us simmers who are less careful with their flight sticks than experienced and trained fighter pilots and more prone to pull a lot more than they are.. lo and behold, the opposite seems to be true, lol. I enjoy this aircraft as much as you, probably more. I have the exact same opinion as you in the regards of realistic and amazing it is, that's why it's a shame for me to have those loose ends hanging, including the subject of this thread. But yeah, with both of us clinging to our opinions, unshaken, we could go on and on forever at this rate, so it's better to agree to disagree.

I believe there is a fair bit of misunderstanding here, probably most of it comes from me & English not being my native language, both in interpreting others and putting my own thoughts into words, and I sincerely apologize for this, it's very time consuming both for me and the participants, but I'm trying the best I can to understand others, and make myself clear. *sigh*.. At this point I'm just repeating stuff I've said before, just in slightly different ways, and I have been for quite some time now. But it's okey as long as we get to some form of agreement in the end, but I digress... I believe I fully understand this, even more so with multiple people mentioning it every now and then, I never denied the fact, nor ignored it. I appreciate the input, however I don't know if it's hard for me to put this clearly or if it's hard for people to understand it or if they ignore it every time I say it or I'm just simply stupid (the most probable): Two footages at least (IIRC there are a couple more) show an A-10 pilot willingly pull the jet --and yes his body and mind sense the plane, the vibrations of the fuselage & the stick, the increased forces on the stick, buffeting.. etc. while doing that-- more than a couple of degrees (depending on which video we're talking about) after & through the dreaded chopped stall tone (beep beep beep), & that's actual degrees not units. Again for god knows how many times, this ain't possible in DCS. This (the fact that it ain't possible in DCS) is evidenced by many people informing me that I'm sitting comfortablly at home pulling my less-than-real-cockpit-precision control stick, forcing me to inadvertently 'overshoot' my careful balancing of the steady and choppy stall tones which makes me wing drop in the first place, even though the real pilots willingly and fully awarely are doing the same thing and more (teh videos) without any wing drop at all.. Get it? You can say the same to anyone making any other bug report. How many bug reports require changing that many parameters or lines of code? I don't know but this one is probably no different than some others reported and fixed. And I don't know if fixing something like this would require as much work as you say, less or more, only YoYo or someone from ED can say. I would understand if YoYo came out & said "Sorry SCU, but your issue would require too much work & money and a lot could go wrong, and not a lot of people are requesting this fix" to which I would probably reply "No problem man, but inform me if some day you will afford to fix it" or something, but instead I get this "You aren't doing this right", "You shouldn't be doing that", "No you're wrong", almost ignoring the arguments I made (not strictly talking about YoYo here, I have nothing personal). The only thing that keep me going is the same thing that keeps a business man going: investment; I invested so much time & effort to this thread (too much, I'm afraid) to quit (which I surely will, soon enough), but then again the whole sim is an investment of time, I just chose to spend part of it on the sim's forums for a bit lolz. I have nothing to say about this subject, literally. I haven't really discussed in the A-10 Engines thread at all, just checked it out, but have no position on it whatsoever. (To anyone who thinks this is a long winded argument, you're dam right it is.. That's what the forums are for right? Right?!)