wilbur81

And that passion and thoroughness shows! The complexity of DCS astonishes me, but it is time and money well spent. Bugs will always annoy, especially when it affects "my favorite jet or missile"... but we are still very appreciative of your work and the enormous task you've gotten yourselves into. Keep up the good work!

Yeah, I've wondered about that as well. I'm not a Tacview user, though, and don't have it downloaded. But I did wonder if it had something to do with the TTA counters' accuracy in the cockpit. I have noted, though, that a quick view of the F10 map shows the missile physically ahead of mine in progress. Big ask, DunDun: Would you be willing to run a test and observe the results in Tacview for us? No pressure. I would be curious, though, to see it from that more objective perspective. I'd be happy to post the mission file for you in a bit, but it's a pretty straightforward setup as you can see from the screenshot above. Thanks!

For sure. I do wonder, though, if it isn't an A.I. thing only? Regardless, the Viper is WAY far away from being finished so they may need to iron out how it supports the 120C as well... It just makes Hornet vs. Viper REALLY challenging at the moment when speed/altitude in a given scenario (like mine posted above) is actually in favor of the Hornet and the Viper's 120C's still arrive first, go active first, etc.

Interesting... I've not heard anything about the Blues toning down their show. I certainly doubt that; or at least highly doubt they'd ever broadcast that. As to the Legacy vs. Super performance: Everything I've heard/read speaks to the Super being more draggy (though that may just have to do with pylons which would be a moot point with the Blues) and less nimble than the Legacy. Both Vincent Aiello ("Jello") and Brian Sinclair from the Fighter Pilot podcast (who flew both Legacy and Super) have said the same: The Super is more capable in terms of endurance, software integration, and combat practicality, but a small step back in terms of maneuverability. "Jello" has also indicated (along with Navy Jet SME Nick Pirnia) that people underestimate the fact that the Super Hornet really is a different airplane altogether and that the Navy really dropped the ball in not designing a more capable aircraft altogether to replace the Legacy, but politically, in order to push the new project through congress/pentagon, they had to sell the Super Hornet as really just "an upgraded Hornet". The FCS in the Super is vastly different than the Legacy because it is a completely new/different airframe. The Super's FCS is "Better" than the Legacy in that it is more stable and even less likely to depart (which the Legacy was already 'super' strong in that regard). This all leads back to my initial point: From a spectator's perspective, it appears that the Super is going to be a less dynamic looking airplane for the dynamic maneuvering of an airshow demonstration. But again, maybe these practice performances are not indicative of how the shows will actually be. As to a less aggressive show: Sheesh, that would be a bummer. The Thunderbirds are a slightly boring show in my opinion (though I adore the Viper) compared to the Blues because the Air Force seems to have regulated things more than the Navy (Just watch sneak passes and see the difference in altitude from the Blues to the 'Birds'). But I've digressed.

Hey, All. I know this is going to be very unpopular, but here it goes: I've been a huge fan of the Blue Angels ever since I was a kid and have seen them live dozens of times. I've been following these practice videos with the new Super Hornets and have slowly (pun intended) come to the conclusion that, from a spectators perspective, the new show is not going to be as dynamic because the Super Hornet appears to be too stable/'dull' in its maneuvering. As I watch the solo's take off in the video below around minute 5:10 , the pitch-up take off just looks dull and slow compared to the old Legacy's pitch authority. The maneuvering of the Super's just looks really slow and lumbering. Yes, the new shows will be louder, but I'm not sure they'll be as interesting to watch. I already miss the Legacy Hornet... but I'll have to reserve final judgment until I see them this summer. I'm just judging based upon all the practice videos that have been posted thus far.

What do you want? Do you want millions more pieces of tiny ground clutter, smaller/more trees and bushes, etc going by your view?.... then you'd have to accept the 6 fps performance that would come with the added detail. A simulation like DCS, doing SO many different things, is a series of hundreds of compromises. You want a sense of greater speed? You need a whole different level of real-world objects of tiny size going by your field of view. The technology to produce this level of scenery detail AND avionics, physics, weather, ATC, sound, explosions, ground troops, naval vessels, wingmen, AI, smoke trails, contrail zones, flight models, etc. ALL while playing at 60 FPS will be available to you in the year 2050 a.d. and beyond.

Hey fellas. Question for you all that I'm puzzled by: I've noticed that my 120C launches from the Hornet against the Viper are never arriving as early as the Viper's are at me. This makes perfect sense, of course, when the Viper is launching higher and faster (which is mostly always ) than me. However, I did several tests where I (in the Hornet) launch simultaneously with an AI Viper, only I am higher and faster... and the Viper's 120C always goes active first (see screenshot collage) by a full 6-7 seconds before mine does. I saved a track but it failed to replicate on viewing. I'm happy to load another, though. So, as you'll see in the picture: - We both launched 120c's simultaneously with head-on aspects. - I launched at 795 kts and 37,436ft - Viper launched at 710 kts and 33,323 ft - I received the aural RWR warning tone as his missile went active while my RDR page indicated that I still had 6 seconds until my 120c's Pitbull. I've tried this scenario several times and am not sure if it has something to do with a bug in the A.I., the Viper, the Hornet, or some other combination? Any Sherlocks want to weigh in for this Watson?

Would you be willing to post a track of one of your landings with the controls indicator on so we could watch/analyze how you're landing? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pronounced instability in vertical speed?" I find holding a stable decent with the throttles in a PA fairly straight forward. I've always felt that the DCS Hornet was pretty under-powered given that it has the GE -402's, but I'm sure ED is getting as close to reality as they legally can... keeping the Early Access status in mind of course.

I'll try an upload a shorter track since this happened deep into a mission, but since the latest O.B., occasionally one or more of the LAU racks holding 120c's will fail to jettison when I hit the yellow/black button. This did not occur before the latest update. I'll try and capture a shorter track and post later.

Hey, Team. Please have a look at the track around 16:06:00. I had TWS looking at 3 fighters and selected Auto to center the scan. At approximately the time mentioned, all three tracks inexplicably disappeared. I have the latest O.B. and no mods. It appears that the L&S target keeps going in and out when I play this mission even though target aspect and altitude remain the same... then once that target is dropped, the scan returns to center losing the other aircraft. Is this intended behavior? RDR Loss 16.06.00.trk

provide tracks, guys, or this will go nowhere.

Hey, Figaro. Question for you: Could you PM me a link to the GAO report you provided data from above? I need to do some more precise testing, but the current DCS Hornet apparently performs no where near those numbers now (it used to, but no longer). Just wondering if that data you've provided is even accurate? I wish it was, but we aren't seeing those numbers currently with 2 aim9s, 2 aim120s, and 33325lbs (60%fuel) in DCS.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding... but the Hornet should always have the AoA advantage vs. the Viper since the Viper is AoA limited and the Hornet is not. The Hornet, as a result, requires stick-force discipline as a result so as to not over-pull and lose that airspeed.

Hey, Bignewy and/or Nineline. Quick (annoying, I know) question: Were any changes made in today's (Jan. 27th) patch to the Hornet's flight model, engine performance, parasitic drag, energy bleed, etc... or new atmospheric effects that would degrade acceleration, turning or slow speed performance? I'm probably imagining things, but just wanted to check for an official word. Sorry to be a nag, especially if I'm just 'placebo-ing.'

Got it. Thanks!

Hey, Bignewy and/or Nineline. Quick (annoying, I know) question: Were any changes made in today's patch to the Hornet's flight model, engine performance, parasitic drag, energy bleed, etc... or new atmospheric effects that would degrade turn performance? I'm probably imagining things, but just wanted to check for an official word.

Just out of curiosity, what specific flight model changes are you hoping to see?

No worries.

My air to air domination in the Hornet... and everything that Echo225 said above.

I'll be honest: Having fallen in love with the DCS Hornet, flight model changes at this stage make me nervous. I am all for getting closer to how the real Block 20 performs... and any steps in the direction of the Hornet's real life performance are a plus from my perspective. But it is going to be really hard to swallow if the flight model updates have a negative impact on the Hornet we've gotten used to over the past three years. Hopefully, all the anecdotal stuff from "Mover" and "Gonky" about the DCS Hornet being a little too draggy and too slow in acceleration are actually true. But we'll see. All this is to say: The current state of the Hornet FM in DCS has at least one fan in me. Here's to improvements that get the Hornet as close to reality as possible...and that that reality is HIGH PERFORMANCE. Keep up the awesome work, ED Team! This jet is out-of-control-amazing.

Agreed...that'd be a fascinating listen!

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.

+1,000,000,000,000,000

Watch the canopy!!

Very true...