Moafuleum

Probably this. I agree it is difficult to read sometimes, especially the FCR because it also is a biut cluttered with the big OSB button labels and the hardly visible blue lines (for instance the ownship bulseye reading which is not readable without zooming). The TIR works just fine though

And jester wheel..

You must certainly mean the MiG-28 key, don't you? :D edit: already old, shame on me xD

The question is if the civ traffic is handled just as placed ground units or if it is just some "animated scenery" for performance reasons. Depending on how simple the target aquisition is modeled in DCS it could be that the TGP can never track a civilian traffic. Didn't try it though

Other modules od that complexity level needed much longer time in the past. Seems like the Viper is really taking advantage from the Hornet dev process.

I don't think they will delete features for the final build which are already in

LST stands for Laser Spot Tracker. And yes, you need to have a TGP attached to spot and track lasers as the Horned does not have anything like the legacy A10s had (Pave Penny) or the Harrier has. The switch activates that functionality if you have a TGP loaded

Why do you think that the F-16's radar doesn't feature things like RWS, TWS and so on?

I'm not saying that everything is correctly modelled, i only say that i believe that the data you have posted in the beginning don't necessarily lead to a breakdown (but certainly can under circumstances in RL) and summarized my understanding of the physics going on. I agree that i already experienced some cases myself in which i felt, something can't be right. However it is hard to tell as i am not a McDonnel engineer. What i wanted to point out is that the posted data is at best an indication but no evidence. Regarding the tire speed: yes, i believe the wheels don't stand 250kts for very long. However the roll distance on a carrier is not very long, especially when you indeed catch a wire and decelerate quickly. Again, i'm not saying that everything is correctly modelled because i just can't know but it is again no law that anything WILL break but only CAN break.

+1

The first two quantities shouldn't actually really matter. The last one does as this is your velocity in the vertical and needs to be absorbed by the landing gear. The first two quantities result in the third. With that said, I'm no expert and didn't read some manuals that shall not be named here but are publicly available. However I'm pretty sure that the 700 ft/min number is not the structural limit of the landing gear but about the maximum descend rate when on glideslope (or so?, i don't remember correctly tbh). What really matters is the force that needs to be absorbed by the landing gear. What does that mean? Well, the landing gear gets compressed during touchdown and the shock strut absorbs the momentum. This happens in a certain amount of time. During that time the aircraft is decelerated from its initial descend rate to zero, resulting in a certain deceleration (or negative acceleration as a physicist would call it). The actual force furthermore depends on the mass of the aircraft as F = m * a. Therefore a heavy aircraft can stand less vv [ft/min] than a light one. I don't know the actual limits but it doesn't necessarily mean that you break something. The limit values given in flight manuals can also depend on other operational restrictions and are not necessarily guaranteed damage limits. For example exceeding those limits would make additional maintenance checks necessary in order to ensure safety and this should be avoided. In DCS nobody cares about that because the Jet costs 80$ and not multiple hundreds of thousands and nobody is called to the X/O's office for that and "it works". As said, I'm no expert but to me it seems that it is either realistic or at best not to tell just from that.

I will buy it when it is finally finished. I'm going to hold off until then. I somehow have the feeling that i am not alone when i read through these forums.

Hi As already mentioned on discord, here again de report: Jester's face appears on the MPCD when doing the following steps fly the F-14 open Jester wheel quit mission while the Jester wheel is still open change to Hornet and do a cold start This happens in SP and MP. Please see the attached screenshot and the tracks. The first track contains the tomcat part and the second the hornet part. I'm not sure if the tracks will play back very well though as track replays with Jester never worked very well in the past. It is certainly related to the very last Tomcat flight one took and not to some generic Jester picture because the background is visible accordingly (here you see the runway because I quit the mission in the F14 while still on the ground) Thanks for looking into it. Jester_part_1_F14.trk Jester_part_2_F18.trk

I believe that these videos don't only serve as pure tutorials but also should showcase the possible look and feel and as such are an advertising.

On Persian Gulf Blue Flag there is often a human Awacs (additionally, on another frequency, to the generic one)

It is not that I am necessarily correct, i recall reading it somewhere. I think you can find the discussion about it in the big section

It was marked as NO BUG and the argument was that the JDAM needs constant power supply in order to remain aligned. Furthermore it was said that the hornet does only power the active pylon.

Hi I am looking for an EU based aerobatics team to join. Regarding my skill level: I don't have experience flying aerobatics in a team but so far I can hold formation and am, of course, willing to learn and practice :joystick: Furthermore I'm also not necessarily only looking for a very professional high level team but any kind of skill level because what matters is fun! I own several modules, including the F-18, F-5, but no trainer, although I am interested to get the C-101 as it looks nice and i've heard that the dev support is really good. However if a specific plane is required which i don't have, I could eventually get it. I am in GMT+1 and available most evenings. If you are aware of a team or even are in one that is actively looking, please let me know! :thumbup: Thank you!

The only occasion i consider the F10 map being legit is as a replacement for a reasonable papermap out of which you can get your coordinates for flight planning. This means, usually you tell the aircraft the waypoints by inserting a cartridge containing presaved waypoints or you enter them yourself and obtain the lat long data from a map like from the F10 map since you directly spawn in your seat and not in the briefing room. Long story short: tacan/adf is not your primary nav system like others have already said but the ins(/gps) and everything else than taking coordinates from F10 map is considered not being realistic

It will never work like in real life since how ECM works is top secret and you will cerrainly not find any open source information on that.

Flew a mission in SP, hot start and at the beginning i noticed this bug. Track attached. After quitting to save the track I flew the mission again at it didn't appear again. Didn't do anything different. Hornet_HMD_HARM.trk

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246935

It greatly depends on the design of the gear. I'm not saying that it can't be improved but the Su25 is designed to operate also from unpaved and rough runways whereas the Hornet is designed to operate from a carrier deck.

In the F-14 the lights are very dim and I often am unable to turn on the wingtip pos light. Yes, i turned on the master light switch.

If you don't know how to politely and decently discuss on a public forum, then...well.. you gave the suggestion what to do already :smilewink: That said, you can rest assured that i know exactly what the definition of FOV is, thank you. However, if you are unable or unwilling to trust in the explainations of several people, then i highly encourage you to try it yourself. Ingame, press RCTR+RSHIFT+pause twice to enable an overlay with additional screen information. Then zoom, you will notice that the FOV is changing. Even if you are nitpicky about your definition of FOV, the zoom is injectively related to FOV.