Hog_No32

Well, just look at the avatar...a grumpy old man. What do you expect?:cry:

No, you are correct.

This!:thumbup:

Very well said! +1

Guys, we can speculate what Wags actually meant or not meant but what purpose does that serve? As we‘ve learned, even Wags sometimes announces: „it‘s in the plan for next week“ but then the plan is destroyed because of unforeseen issues that popped up during acceptance testing. So even if we have a „plan“ from an authorized and competent DCS guy, that plan might still be subject to change. A plan isnot a promise to deliver and I believe most of the frustration that some users have expressed comes from exactly that: taking a plan as a promise. That is not the fault of DCS... Don‘t get me wrong, I am not criticizing DCS for what has happened recently. I do lead a team of software developers myself and I very much understand what can happen during the actual development and testing. We should actually be happy that they obviously take the testing part serious. It is very appealing to release a new feature when it has been finally developed (meaning, the code is there and works to some extent) but not fully acceptance tested - especially if you have a hungry crowd of customers begging for it. When issues pop up during acceptance testing, you have to decide whether A) the issues are negligible for most users under most scenarios and are therefore not considered „blocking issues“ or B)whether they are significant enough to outweigh the benefits of bringing the new feature to the customers. Imagine DCS had completed development of the JHMCS and it worked fine itself but as a „side effect“ it would currently mean the HUD does no longer work at night as before (just an example). That would probably be a clear case B) and something like this might have been what we‘ve just experienced recently. As much as I would have loved to get the JHMCS or the FOAS page, I praise DCS for having a focus on quality instead of premature release. Again, you don’t take a decision to NOT release a feature easily. Bottom line: Lower your expectations and don‘t take any announced plans - as short-term as they might be - as a promise. The plans are just there to give you an idea and more than often they turn out to be true. Sometimes not. But if you want to do yourself a favor, don‘t let that frustrate you.

You have to perform a number of steps before these buttons/switches do what you want them to do. On the EW page you have to set up the ALE-47 and Master Arm needs to be set to ARM. I strongly encourage you to have a look at the relevant section in Chuck‘s excellent guide over here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=212282 You‘re looking for pages 160ff. (PART 11) Cheers, Hog

You can set the warning thresholds on that page for both your barometric altimeter as well as the radar altimeter (although tbh I don‘t know what the latter is used for since I always use the knob on the radar altimeter itself to set the warning altitude). The barometric setting on that page is by default set to 5000 ft. This defines the altitude which, as you descend through it, causes bitchin betty to call out „ALTITUDE...ALTITUDE...“ with the corresponding HUD warning as well. Unlike the radar altimeter warning set on the radar altimeter itself which will contiuously beep at you as long as you are below the threshold, the barometric altitude warning only comes up once each time you descend through it.

AI shooting down friendlies happens. I got killed in my Hornet recently while enganging a pair of MiG29s head on. All of a sudden I wa blown out of the sky. At first I thought me idiot lost SA (as usual..) and didn‘t realize there were more enemies going after me as I was sure the missile or whatever killed me did definitely not come from ‚my‘ MiGs... I learned in the mission log then that I was shot down by a Phoenix fired from a Tomcat miles behind me and obviously attacking the same MiG29 I was going after... Bad luck I guess...

You‘ve been able to select a stock F-16 in the sim and flew it? I obviously missed the release of the DCS F-16 then... Kidding aside, what Essah meant was that neither the F-16 nor the MiG29 are available from the list of aircraft assigned to the country „Poland“ in DCS. We know the Polish AF operates both in RL (...hence the complaint).

Aplogies then, Eldur as I obviously got you wrong. Thanks for clarifying!

Since I‘ve been reading this all over the place now I think it is time to clear sth up: Yes, Wags mentioned 4 particular developers and their current and next duties. How many folks jump to the conclusion „What? Just 4 devs working on the Hornet AT ALL?“ puzzles me. The 4 devs were mentioned because these are the guys and gals that are working on the visible next features (JHMCS,FPAS,AGM-65E) and fixes (B-sweep) that are scheduled to come to OB by end of October. These were likely mentioned since these are additions/improvements many players are looking for. By far this doesn‘t imply there are just 4 devs actively working on stuff for the Hornet! None of the mentioned 4 developers might be the guy who works on the ATFLIR implementation (which as we‘ve been told is intended to come along with an entirely revamped algorithm for the IR imagery in DCS). So we might already have 5 guys working on the Hornet, yet wags didn‘t mention No.5 since he or she is not working on sth we are supposed to get until end of October, so short term - which is what the first part of that Mini-Upadate was all about. Comparing the number of 4 to the number of Devs reported to have worked on other module is entirely nonsense. I‘m sure none of the 4 mentioned worked on the visual model and graphics of the Hornet and likely different people have developed the flight model. Wags gave us a snapshot of the ongoing development focused on the short term and high visibility items. It was an unusual act of providing deep insights and I and many of us I think very much appreciated that. However, with all the wrong conclusions drawn by many based on the information kindly provided by Wags, I fear he might hesitate to repeat that in the future.

Well, if you guys understands Wags the same way I do then we should get JHMCS, Maverick (E), FPAS and antenna logic fixed in todays OB patch (which will be the last in this month): The sentence highlighted in bold tells me that only AGM-65F and G version won't come this month - and in turn the other mentioned items will! I am not sure we always got a video from Wags in the past explaining the new stuff before the release of a new functionality or system in an OB update. At least I would not complete rule out that JHMCS will be in todays patch just because there has been no video (as of yet...). But in a few hours time all the speculation will come to an end...:music_whistling:

QTY sets the overall number if bombs to be dropped. MULT sets the number of bombs dropped simultaneously/per interval. INT sets the distance in feet in which [MULTiple number of] bombs will impact. Example 1: QTY: 4 MULT: 2 INTV: 300 Upon pressing the weapons release button, this setting will drop a pair of bombs and then another pair of bombs with the second pair released so that it impacts 300 ft beyond the first pair. Example 2: QTY: 2 MULT: 2 This will drop a pair of bombs per each press of the weapon release button.

It was mentioned by Wags a couple times already as an item the team (or parts of it) is actively working on. So I wouldn‘t be too surprised if we would already get it with the next OB update this Wednesday. I wouldn’t be surprised if we wouldn‘t either though...:)

You cannot see anything because it is not implemented yet, but will be soon (it helps to start reading from the beginning...:music_whistling:)

Think of it that way: If DCS wouldn‘t allow us to access an early version of the Hornet but only release it when it would be feature complete, what would we have on our computers now? Nothing, right? All the carrier ops which we can do now and get better at we couldn‘t do. All the AAR with the Hornet which is so much fun we couldn‘t do. All the Hornet systems we already have (and that is many) we couldn‘t learn yet how to use them effectively. I would have way less knowledge and experience in air-to-air because the Hornet is the first bird that motivated me to have a look beyond my mud mover horizon. 59 MiGs and Tupolevs and Suchois would still fly in my DCS world. So much fun we would not have had in the past 5 months... EA or not is something everybody must answer for him or herself. For me personally, I enjoyed every minute of flying this bird in EA. Also keep in mind that doing EA means DCS has a huge tester base effectively which run the module on a myriad of different rigs. That makes bug finding, reporting and fixing much faster. Ultimately, that should result in a higher quality product being available earlier. So even if you are not in for EA but wait for the feature complete release you will benefit from EA.

I think it is not so much about the absolute speed itself but more to the point that you dont want to accelerate too much during the dive since that makes the pipper moving faster and faster up and make a precise pickle more difficult than it has to be.

With the general purpose low drag bombs like the Mk82/83/84 you should get good hits using CCIP and AUTO. I have no issues with these. There are some issues observed with the targeting solution for high drag bombs, namely the Snakeye (and possibly also the ballute Mk82YT but I didn‘t test that myself yet).

Yeah, Kudos to those who manage to do AAR without an extension! I purchased myself one years ago when I began flying helicopters in DCS. But I immediately appreciated the much finer control through the increased stick travel for fixed-wing assets as well.

The wording in the newsletter is a bit different and - unless unforeseen things come in its way which always can happen - it gives me sufficient confidence that we indeed are going to get the mentioned items by the end of this month. I recognize everybody has different priorities and opinions on what is most desired but I am very happy that we ground pounders will get a first guided weapon (even with a bit of a standoff capability)! (add HARMs,GBUs, ATFLIR and A/G radar and I‘d consider it feature complete... for me at least) ;)

Excellent analysis, thanks a lot for sharing! Besides the money, whether that 30 or 34% increase is sufficient for someone to go for the investment is probably also a question of where you start from. If you are getting say steady 70 or 80 fps with the 1080Ti with every setting maxed out, 30% more is probably not too appealing. But if your overall system gives you „only“ 20 or 30 fps even with a 1080Ti, you probably appreciate any additional frame (admittedly, if you get these numbers with a 1080Ti you probably have another probem in your setup). Think about a regular car which only does 100km/h max. An increase in topspeed of 34% would be very noticeable and appreciated if you regularly do 6-7 hour journeys (like I do). If the topspeed of your car is 280 km/h...well, you would never be able to really benefit from a 34% increase. Not even on a German highway at night.

Well, that is interesting indeed. I changed the loadout only slightly (swapped 2xMk82 on BRUs with 1xMk83) so the difference apparently was minor and the cat shot was absolutely no different compared to the ~100 shots I did before. Still, I am not wrong saying that technically it is possible in the sim to refuel/rearm while attached to the shuttle. Whether it is sensible or not to do so is another question (in fact I already stated it is unrealistic anyway).

As I learned yesterday, the simulation actually allows you to refuel/rearm while still attached to the cat (tried it on catapult no.1). Pretty unrealistic of course, but from the software there is no need to disconnect from the shuttle. By the way, I first tried to disconnect using the „U“ command but for some reason it didn‘t work yesterday. Didn‘t gave it a closer look really since I don‘t need that function all too often.

Yes, it is true. Radar and IFF are both not finished yet. Radar in particular is currently being revamped entirely in DCS now, primarily for the Hornet (but other moduls will benefit from it as well). Just follow the weekend newsletters and Wags Mini-Updates here in the forum and you‘ll be on top of the development process and status.

I would recommend to set the tanker ground speed in the ME (on all waypoints, including waypoint 0 and including the orbit speed) to the maximum possible for the KC-130. ~220 KIAS sounds a tad too low for me, it will make the jet much more draggy and therefore harder to finely control it. In my self made missions I usually set up the KC-130 at 11k feet and 336 kts GS which is the maximum the ME allows me. This translates into an IAS in game of around 279 kts which I find is a good speed to easily refuel with the Hornet.