Hog_No32

in so many threads were people basically started to „assume“ what you just assumed. I‘m boarding a plane right now so I don‘t have the time to search for all these posts, sorry. Where have you read what you claim?

Please. Not again this argument which we‘ve been told is not correct. Numerous times Wags and NineLine both explained that there are no (dev) ressources pulled away from Hornet-related tasks to bring the Viper to the market. It‘s simply different developers and the Hornet got less-frequent updates just because the things they are now working on for the Hornet are much more complex than the stuff that was developed before (ATFLIR/Litening, A/G radar, INS, TWS).

It is I think...:smilewink:

Absolutely the same here. I seem to accidentally hit that AA weapon select switch especially when I employ the gun. In the first split second when that happens I always think my gun is jammed - but the HUD symbology tells me the truth...:megalol: Since then I try to remind myself to put my thumb distinctively away from that button before I pull the trigger.

So, by „wanted“ heights, distances and speeds you mean...the NATOPS numbers, right?:music_whistling:

Probably because you can only integrate so many switches and buttons into a HOTAS that you have to prioritize and tailor the outfit as best as possible to the mission(s) the platform is intended to perform. So the designers of the A-10C HOTAS obviously came to different conclusions than the guys working on the Hornet - of course, because the mission sets are different. Unlike the Hornet, the Hog is not a multirole aircraft per se, Air-to-Air is not one of its missions and it is not a self-escort platform in that respect. On top of that the systems architecture and cockpit philosophy of the Hog is simply completely different from the Hornet so it‘s anyway a bit of an academic discussion.

Awesome! Thanks Gripes!

Usually the first thing you want to check in your case (if you haven’t yet) is to make sure your stick is properly calibrated. You can double check that in game by displaying the control axis overlay (or however that thing is called).

Holy smokes, you needed reheat (in your lingo:smilewink: ) to stay on the tanker in the fin? I mean I have heard that the RB199 wasn’t the most powerful engine on earth...but really? Or was that just with an extremely draggy loadout (and what would that have been) or at rather high altitude?

Perhaps because it are posts like yours that „demotivate“ (to put it mildly) ED officials to hesitate providing any estimates or „plans“?

Either I don‘t get your sense of humor at all or it is a language problem or you don‘t even try to be funny. Or a combination of all of these...

Wow, that is encouraging to hear! Also for the DCS software engineer(s) who worked on it I guess :) These are the things where an armchair pilot like me is deeply grateful for feedback from RL pilots! I will never be able to correlate my DCS experience to any real flying (of which I have very little anyway). I can rather easily find out if a button or switch is correctly represented in DCS by looking at pictures of the real thing. I can read in the NATOPS how things should work and compare that to our jet. But I will never be able to tell if the stick force (or rather „deflection“ for us) needed to lift the nose gear off the runway seems to be right ... or if the effects of the tanker‘s wake are even close to how it feels like in reality. So thank you WindyTX and CB as well.

PLEASE.... does it occur to you that this might not be super funny for a developer sweating to get the stuff out to us? Putting the „Joke“ in front of it doesn‘t help at all. Thank you for considering this before you try to be funny next time.

Just yesterday... https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3967134&postcount=167 Hornet Mini-Updates is the thread you should monitor for updates.

Indeed I think many folks have very unrealistic expectations on what the A/G radar allows to do, not only in the sim but also in real life. There is a reason why most RL fighter pilots I listened to said they rarely use it at all except for missions like anti-ship. It is true that Strike Eagles used the A/G radar a lot during Desert Storm. But... ...that was mainly done (and only successful) for striking pre-planned strategic targets at night. Would they have had JDAMs or JSOWs back then, they likely would have hardly relied on the radar to refine their targeting solution or update their position. So once we have a targeting pod (and that will apparently happen before the A/G radar), I personally could really only think of using the A/G radar in the sea mode in conjunction with employing the Harpoon...but not much beyond that. P.S.: Have to admit that I am really looking forward to this particular capability though since it is already so much fun in the Viggen :smilewink:

best response I‘ve seen in a long time on this :thumbup:

Seems you missed an update between that one years ago and the recent one:) The engineer at ED who was responsible for A/G radar development in the past left the company (think more than a year ago). So while obviously there was some code existent and developed (hence the screenshot you mentioned) but not finished, it‘s quite likely that it didn‘t make any sense for the new guy to take those old bits of code, trying to understand them and further developing it to completion from there. It usually is more efficient and you get a much cleaner code (better testable, modifyable) if you start from scratch again than trying to complete a year-old code that someone else wrote. It‘s about the long-term health of the code and the ability to refine it further at a later stage. Thats is how it is usually done for a rather complex and integral software.

Makes me wonder if it was the plane who was smoking or you ... and if so what stuff:lol:

You are assuming a lot here...always dangerous. It could very well be that the fuel went away a bit quicker than foreseen due to battle damage. Happened to me one or two times that a MANPAD ruptured a tank or fuel line.

Excellent. Thank you, inmigrant!

I’m always happy to learn, inmigrant :) So I‘d appreciate if you could share the mission. I do own the PG and NTTR maps next to Caucasus.

Agree as far as RL is concerned. In DCS, we certainly lack the possibility of a backup radar or any other invisible or inactive unit within a group. There is a lot you can do in the ME though to make SAMs a bit „smarter“ (actually, „less stupid“ would be more appropriate). But it‘s a lot of scripting and triggers. This is where I have hopes that ED will make the life of us mission builders a bit easier.

True. Even though I love mission building, playing offline exclusively :) . I learn so much on the way about the real world techniques and doctrines applied....there is a lot of research going into my missions because I strive to have them as realistic as possible. And on that note, all the S-300 sites I came across in the real world had their Clam Shell and Flap Lid radars within 300m of the TELs. Now, talking about a mission in DCS (but likewise in RL as well), I really don‘t care about this S-300 site having its CP 40kms away or another „element“ of TELs another 40km away. For me this is just a different SAM site then because likely only the first one protects the area I want to intrude to get to my target. Another launcher 80km away means the maximum engagement range of it is 80km further away as well and that makes it just irrelevant for my mission. Also, in a real combat environment you might not want to rely on a „wireless“ connection between your TELs and the radars (and possibly the CP as well) because that might be easily jammed, spoofed or otherwise rendered unreliable at best. So you revert back to cable connections and therefore the spread of your SAM site will be limited, just as the illustration further above showed (TELs not further away from the radar than 250m). And finally as someone already has mentioned: Kill the Flap Lid tracking radar and no missile can be guided. The remaining TELs are meat on the table then. Who cares about the CP being intact 40kms away? That is why any warfront S-300/S-400 itself will be protected by short- and medium range air defense systems such as Tor, Tunguska or Pantsir.

In one if the weekend-news Wags mentioned that the team will work on the SAM system in general to make it much more networked, integrated and sophisticated. Of course there is no timeline and I think that is a good thing because it likely is way too early for that. But yours (and mine) wishes are heard. There is hope :)

Maybe it is just a testament to what Jell-O and others have said on the FPP: Compared to other 4th gen fighter jets, the Hornet is not the greatest plane when it comes to getting speed back after you got slow. It‘s not a Viper... (but still so much more adorable IMHO)