*Aquila*

Things to check: -INS fine alignement, and not having suffered over-G -AG mode -Master arms on -HUD reads 'ord' -Having all the pertinent weapon stations armed, and only the pertinent ones (RIO) -Having the correct bomb mode selected (RIO) -Having the correct weapons selected (RIO)

Ase some said above, stations 2 & 8 only.

The matter has already been discussed ***here*** and ***here***. I found it useful to start another thread in the bugs section, with a new test protocol and the data thus obtained. During the tests, the target was an AI F/A-18C, level 'excellent', set to evade fire, weapons hold. We were both flying at Angels 10. He was heading West, Mach 0.55. I was heading North, Mach 0.55. The missile left the rail while the target was right in my 12, at 5.0 nm. The STT-locks were done in the RIO seat from the Pulse Search mode in the F-14B, and from RWS in the F/A-18C. The F/A-18C shots were done in norm mode (loft inhibited). There never was any kind of lock loss. There were 3 rounds of tests, with 30 missiles launched in each round. 1st round: F-14B, ACM cover unflipped. 2nd round: F-14B, ACM cover flipped. 3rd round: F/A-18C. The Tacview files are in the attachment archive below. The Tacview files and the data say the same thing: the missile behaves as if it was not the same between the Hornet and the Tomcat. Not the same speed, not the same sensitivity to chaff, not the same guidance laws (and indeed not the same energy management). The sample relevance is always a question but maybe the difference between the ACM flipped and ACM unflipped results in the Tomcat deserve further investigation. [Edit] Hadn't seen that one, sorry... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=252949 DCS-AIM-7M-test.zip

Click bait? WTH? The title says what you find in the post: a comparison. And the post says the same as you. It even says why the test was done. I swear nobody pays me for each person who reads my posts...

I'm at the 7M right now.

Which brings us to the excellent idea of a provisional timetable. Quite sure this would be a guarantee of clarity, even if we know that 'previsional' does definitely not mean 'contractual', because life is life.

The way to heaven lays in throwing to your ignore list the casual 'whiners vs fanboys' guys. Lots of people can't imagine someone who thinks differently without being an incarnation of evil. Their problem, not ours.

Not really. Here, you have a standardized engagement in which both protagonists start on a straight line. When things turn to a knife fight in a phone box, PK is somewhere around 20%, but conditions are too varient for a comparison to be relevant.

Today's update fixed the bug. No more problem, at least on my config. :thumbup:

Thank God, we don't have 8 YOs whining about the other ones whining :D

Cool, you understood the problem with this model of so-called "parallel" develompent. Which money will be made by developing the ATFLIR? None. Which new module development can take advantage of its development? None. The Litening was not in the initial Hornet project IIRC. It's all about damage control.

Can't wait to know what new module will get the ATFLIR before the Hornet following this logic ;)

It behaves differently (guidance, speed) than ED's one and it's supposed to be the same. Tests ongoing with a big sample right now.

You're probably right, but what causes disappointment to many Hornet users is seeing that their module will get such an important feature after another one released more than a year later. The customer's problem is that it feels unfair, whatever problem is software development.

Maybe because some of us (me for example) are ED customers since last century and already saw a few seasons of the show. For modules. For core features. Etc. We became human encyclopedias of the good excuse for project postponement. Our enthusiasm is still there. Our trust, a little less. We want to read a little less words and touch a little more often the reality of the finished work.

I don't think there's any Viper vs Hornet hassle. We're all in the same team and we all wish an efficient, coherent and fair development process for the whole DCS World thing. TBH, if it happens that I notice a significant evolution in this direction, I'll buy the Viper to support DCS, although it's unlikely that I will really fly that bird.

I know it's unpleasant for ED people to read that but I fully agree with the above. Let's make it clear that the intention isn't to put ED in trouble. It's to put things back in order in all brains: us, players and you, ED guys, are both passionate. But we are the customers and you are the shopkeepers. You can lock our threads and ban our accounts but you can't unlock our wallets. I understand why you make the TWS for the Viper before the Hornet. I also understand why it's the best option for now. But that's the result of quite an unforgivable process from a customer's point of view. I wish you the best although I am very unhappy with that behaviour and hope it changes before it's too late for DCS.

You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: fanboys who love CTDs and wise men who hate them. I'm a fanboy anyway. Oh shet. Hope they didn't fix my favorite bug... :cry:

Okay, I surrender. You owned me. That's in fact my favorite bug. I don't want it solved. :megalol:

Dude, you're right. Always. Really, you are. I repeat: it's a bug. HB must answer. And solve it. But it's not a game stopper because you can fly the cat without that feature. Which does not mean that this bug is minor. I can't say more. Not being a stupid fanboy doesn't mean continuously whining about the same problem.

Not only for automatic carrier recovery. It's a comfortable way to land, not only on the ship, after a long and difficult mission, as you only have to use the stick to bring the plane safely on the ground. But nothing that one can't do with both hands. Which doesn't mean it's not a bug to be taken care of.

Stop trying to be stupid: you're not. It's a bug, HB must answer and it is definitely not a game stopper. Any questions?

Every time if and only if your landing gear and flaps are down.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251837

It looks a lot like that.