Kang

Absolutely, it would be wonderful to get these effects modeled and implemented properly. But while we can't have that I'd rather have the unrealistic perfectly working RWR over the unrealistic going nuts over somebody on the other side of the theatre being in a fight RWR.

This bug has been around for years and years and every time it is brought up someone springs up with his 'eh, you people all just don't understand radar' nonsense. Yes, you are right that those are effects that are a thing, but I doubt DCS specifically models them, really. Give it a little testing, you can get lock warnings from planes that are a hundred miles away and pointing cold when they lock someone else, no amount of 'these are sidelobes' or 'it just is a lot of power being sent out' handwaving is making that correct. I am perfectly on board with these explanations for many scenarios and in fact I welcome that RWRs are far from perfect in the sim, as they certainly are in real life, but a lot of this reasoning has - for years now - made excuses for never properly investigating a long-standing bug. As a matter of fact the explanation I am much more likely to buy is that this problem occurs in a much rarer manner if you mostly fly single player missions, simply by virtue of the changes of a friendly flight being far away from your own is so much lower, but if you fly multiplayer now and then you are very likely to notice this and quickly find situations in which none of 'the radar simulation is just so detailed that Kang doesn't get it' bits can possibly apply. P.S.: This also isn't entirely a Hornet problem. It happens across a lot of modules.

It is one big step to take if there are plans of making an official module out of a transport plane.

I love how you necro an eight months old thread mainly to tell someone whose opinion differs from yours that he should go find a different hobby.

I know this might sound crazy, but I don't remember ever getting a range reading from a tanker's TACAN.

Lovely to see the speculation is in full swing in several threads, as well as several derailments well underway.

I don't mind the idea of giving singular modules extra callsigns. The A-10 has had its exclusive set for ages now as well. One little advantage is that just by hearing the callsign you got a rough idea of what type that flight might be. In any case, I welcome the variety.

It does look really good, I'm looking forward to it. But as much as I love seeing the progress on the model, is there any word on how the code side of things is progressing?

Yes, those are coloured signal flares.

I myself rather wonder if it's worth it, really, without doing a bit of a revamp of how the logbooks work in the first place. Sure there isn't any harm in it, but why bother with needing the shelf space in the cloud and the administrative hassle with it, when a) you are the only one to ever look at your logbook to begin with b) it doesn't contain that much interesting information - this might be a matter of opinion but to me only the hours flown is all that relevant and that gets easily skewed by the fact that only single player missions count, and c) with it being local you can copy, backup and edit it to your heart's contend.

Alright, fair enough. Just struck me as odd when I saw it. Guess the 'original' pylon is meant for AIM-7s only then (as far as missiles are concerned).

Perhaps in this world of missile spam nobody else cares much, but: It used to be that you could select single AIM-120s on the wing pylons of the Hornet and it would be mounted to the pylon directly. In the current version, though, in the same scenario you end up with a twin rack that is just half-loaded. This begs the question: is this realistic and intended? It seems to me the pylon itself should be sufficient.

Yes, this might be a low priority thing, but on the other hand: it's also one of these things that takes very little effort really. The animation of it is already there (you can see it by F2-ing a Hornet right after mission start) and ground crew can be instructed via F8-menu to stow boarding ladders on the A-10. Can I live without it? Sure can. But I have to ask myself why ED went through the trouble of animating it when it is not intended for use.

I think the borders of the PG map there are a bit optimistic to say the least. Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are, well, there topographically speaking, but there is literally nothing there and as far as I'm aware no plans to expand the actual map. It's more like a third of the width with a few bits of Iran extending beyond it then.

Ejected pilots walking over bridges will phase through said bridges and walk down into rivers instead. Probably not very important, but still.

Well, if you could get a certain percentage of the creators of the skins you enjoy to use a certain tag ('Realistic', 'Semi-Realistic', 'Fictional') this wouldn't be a lot of trouble.

...which is also the reason why random deviations occur and longer track files tend to be all messed up nonsense towards the end. If you intend to make movies/screenshots/whatnot from them, better split your flights in several small track files.

Coming to think of it, does anybody know why the Bort # is part of that announcement? I mean, the system has no way of relaying such information from any other craft and the way it is set up it seems a bit like announcing the number just wastes precious seconds.

Have you tried setting your plane tail # to something else in the ME? I'm fairly sure it tells you the aircraft number.

Actually it has previously been a bug that markers on the map would 'freeze in place' and just come along when panning the map; perhaps that's back a little.

Wait, blind it? I thought ye olde IR missile jammer worked by 'blinking' (or pulsing rather?) and such suggesting to a missile that it was off target while it in fact was not, thus prompting it to 'correct' away.

Thank you for the reminder, Gumbie. It's still far from working okay, or as it was, but updated sound and video drivers at least let me enter a game again; just a lot of unexpected waiting involved.

I tried that and it sadly has not produced any change.

I received an update to Windows 10 last night and while I managed to use DCS quite normally yesterday, today the luck has apparently run out. Single Player missions load alright-ish (one crashed earlier, but that might be unrelated), but the attempt of joining any multiplayer server always ends at the end of the loading screen, status saying 'Mission Load Done'. I've tried with several different servers in order to rule out mission-related issues, always the same result. Anybody else having a similar issue? Or better yet, a solution? dcs.log

I haven't tried that in a few weeks now, but have you tested this out in different missions/scenarios? I generally found that it's roughly oriented for a Vikhr shot, which from the left launcher might be what you experience. Other than that the KA-50s autopilot does correct for wind in the ground track, which in some wind- and range conditions either puts the automatic rudder to its limit or ends up pointing the nose further upwind than you would expect.