Jump to content

Hog_No32

Members
  • Posts

    496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hog_No32

  1. Hog_No32

    AGM154A

    To your picture, we don‘t have the A-1 version with the BLU-111 warhead (which is just a Mk82 with a different type of explosive) but the original A version with the BLU-97/B cluster bomb submunition.
  2. I‘ve never seen an operational S-300 site spread the way you describe it (you can find many on Google Earth). Sure an S-300 will be integrated into the overall air defense and therefore be „connected“ to EW radars which can be far away. But the S-300 components like TEL, SRs, TR will be within a few hundred meters of each other.
  3. Hog_No32

    Update

    I‘m happy your testers found them instead of us.:) Appreciate your efforts!
  4. You guys remember what the OP‘s question was? Nothing about failure scenarios or mechanical backup systems. To be fair, likely only a pilot who has flown both the real F-15C and F/A-18C can provide an answer to that. And there might be just a handful (if any) out there who have done that since pilots normally don‘t switch between Air Force and Navy on a regular basis...
  5. So do I. Same assessment over here. I haven‘t seen any of the reviews yet but anyone knows if the sensor select switch can also be pressed down as well? That binding was added to our Hornet a while ago.
  6. Would you also recommend that Boeing should now stop the entire development of the 777X (or 777-8/9) or even their entire production to get the MAX fixed? DCS is not a Hornet simulator and there are other customers who are eager to receive updates of their modules as well (...not only Hornet guys pay money to ED) or are awaiting new modules? Flagship or not, the „do one thing at a time until it is finished“ mantra does not fly well in the software business. Also not outside of the gaming world. Not if you want to run a sustainable business with a broad customer base. I‘m not saying ED does everything well, clearly communication is a bit of an issue every now and then. But I do recognize they received the message a while ago that users in general appreciate a more open and transparent communication on development stati and activities. Hornet mini-updates come to my mind where we sometimes even got to know how many devs are working on which specific topics and in what priority. That is way beyond what most software companies will tell you.
  7. very well said
  8. No need to apologize, all is good. Just found the thought of still being new and modern very compelling and had some fun.:)
  9. The SA-15 was designed in the mid seventies. By that standard, at the age of 39 I am also still young and modern. Thank you for the little moral boost :thumbup:
  10. I‘ve found the Mk20 Rockeye on the Hornet rather „ok“ when used delivered accurately (...not saying I always do). When I drop two of them with an interval of 250-350m against a few SAM sites I often was able to completely destroy 2 TELs and sometimes the radar as well. I figured they are significantly more effective when dropped in intervals where the patterns of the canisters overlap to a certain degree. Obviously it becomes even better if you drop them as a pair (MULT 2) where the double amount of bomblets cover the same area. I prefer the interval option though since that provides an adjustable balance between bomblet density and the covered area in total. A single Mk20 or CBU-99 alone really is not too effective at the moment. Sure I have no clue whatsoever how this compares to reality. But yeah, the lack of a fragmentation damage model in DCS currently makes it probably less effective compared to RL. Especially when your objective is not necessarily a total destruction of an enemy unit but maybe an „m-kill“ (mobility kill, i.e. knocking off one of the tracks of a tank) is what you want to achieve. That is where shrapnels are useful but their effect on targets is currently not modelled I think.
  11. First complain then ask for a reward for your patience...is it just me or did „patience“ got a new meaning?
  12. I also appreciate the openness and communication. Am I disappointed not to play around with the JSOW Wednesday evening? Yes I am. And I am sure ED fully understands the disappointment. But I also appreciate to be able to play around with the Hornet for another week without any bigger issues that came from a hurried implementation and some skipped testing for a new feature/weapon. I certainly don‘t want to get the JSOW when that means I‘ll get CTDs whenever I try to drop a JDAM or when I fire a HARM or when the waypoint system will not work correctly anymore. Then better keep the JSOW in the oven a bit longer...
  13. I think it is a bit of semantics (as so often during forum discussions): First of all, the OP wanted to know what the reason for the unexpected and unusual pitch up behavior could be, trying to follow the standard procedures (hence, no need to discuss what is technically possible without following the procedures). I think we all agree that to a achieve the normal and desired flight characteristics the plane needs to be trimmed for takeoff. 12 nose up for a field takeoff and 16-18 for a carrier launch. „Setting“ the takeoff trim can be achieved in different ways, but the normal procedures prescribe to always press the T/O trim button (which by the way not only set the stabs to 12 up but also neutrals the roll and yaw trim). That sets the trim for a field takeoff. For a carrier launch you additionally have to manually trim it further to 16-18 to have the correct takeoff trim set. @Bladders46: Could you maybe attach a screenshot of your FCS page just before you start your takeoff roll? Or a track file (...but I won’t be able check that before Tuesday when I get back to my rig).
  14. From what I‘ve seen in videos from those guys who messed around with the lua file to get the JSOW „a bit earlier“, I believe it will be the original A model with the BLU-97/B cluster bomb submunition. In my opinion a great addition to the Hornet‘s arsenal when it comes to SEAD. I can‘t wait to work out my own tactics using that thing against an S-300 site in one of my selfmade missions
  15. I frankly never run the FCS BIT, I do cold starts most of the time, I launch both from the carrier (95%) and from the field (5%). I never experienced any trouble after takeoff. Regardless whether carrier or field launched, I always press FCS Reset as part of the start-up procedures as soon as the left (second) engine comes online. Then I always press the T/O trim button for a few seconds and confirm on the FCS page that the stabilators show 12. Then I ensure FLAPS are set to HALF. For a field takeoff that‘s it for me. I never adjusted my trim away from 12 even with different takeoff weights (mostly on the heavy side). For a carrier launch, I trim up from the 12 to either 16 or 17, depending on whether my t/o gross weight is below 44k lbs (16) or above (17). Don‘t think I ever was heavy enough for an 18. Following these procedures, I am pretty happy with the behavior. I know you mentioned a shore takeoff but just in case: For a carrier launch I don‘t really move the stick for the first second or so after clearing the shuttle and until the FCS worked out a smooth and stable attitude. Only then I start to provide any inputs. That is different on the field for sure where you actively have to move the nose up.
  16. Welcome back Badders46, is that after a ramp start (cold and dark) or from hot parking (engines running, ready for taxi)? I‘ve never had that issue myself but I‘ve seen a few posts where some described a similar behavior. That however was mostly related to either incorrect trim or flaps settings, both which you say you do correct. So something else must be amiss.
  17. Very appropriate, AvroLanc! Time to celebrate!
  18. While most of the above is still true, one thing has changed since one of the recent updates (OB on my side): The tanker now extends the hose already after the first radio contact with him („Request Refuelling“? „Request rejoin“? I‘m not sure what it exactly was). Before that update it was as you described (extension only after „Ready pre-contact“).
  19. Searching the forum on exactly the same question, happy having found this. I think I understand that it currently is not possible set up an ship in a way to allow it to defend against incoming anti-ship missiles (by either missiles or CIWS) but to deny it shooting an anti-ship missile itself against the attacker (or a tomahawk against a Silkworm). Is that correct? That leads to me to a follow on: What does the ROE „RETURN FIRE“ really mean? What does it allow or deny the ship to do and what are the triggers (conditions) that lead to it „attacking“ or „defending“?
  20. What I said was derived from my professional background as a Product Owner for a bunch of software (very complex ones as well). And as a Product Owner I am talking to „both sides“, my customers and my developers. So I perfectly know the struggle, you want to get as many features and fixes to the customers as possible and at the same time I know the realities of actual development. But even if you leave the domain of software development and just look at your life: Does everything and always work out as planned? Hell, no. But you simply adjust and try to find the best possible solution for the problem that just popped up. And then move on. And - and that is true for most of my customers as well as probably for most people over here - they understand this and just carry on. Again, that applies to most people, not to everyone :smilewink:
  21. From the day the Hornet went to EA, ED was very open an clear that exactly the things you want to have would be added during development and would not come very soon. Sure, they did not specify what and when exactly. But any such statement would habe been anyway nothing but guesstimates. Any software company in the world which considers itself professional that deals with complex software including 3rd party contributions which need to be integrated will tell you that you simply cannot plan such a big project on a level where you have release dates for each and every feature for the next 1-2 years. And it wouldn‘t make sense at all to do that, that was the old classic „waterfall approach“ to software development. You‘d make a huge, huge specification with every little thing completely described, you come up with a massive plan and start to work on things. And then your plan begins to fall apart after a few weeks because unforeseeable things happen. Now you have to rework parts of your specifications, analyze the impact on other parts of the software (possibly reworking those as well) and all this takes a lot of time. This method has proven over and over to be ineffective and companies who failed to realize this learned that the hard way (even some big companies). It is simply unrealistic to foresee any possible thing that could happen in such complex developments. Might not always be super nice for a customer. But let‘s put things in perspective: If you have bought the Hornet during the EA discount period you paid 60 bucks for it, knowing that it won‘t be feature complete for quite some time (ED never promised a date for feature completion). With those 60 dollar you paid all the development that already went into the module and also all the future development for it that is still ongoing. In my humble opinion, 60 dollars is not really much for all that I got for it and even will get in the months to come. I am now at just over 100 hours in the Hornet. Those were exciting 100 hours and I have no reasons to believe the next 100 will be any different. That‘s a lot of fun for those 60 bucks. Go to Disneyland once and tell me how many hours of fun you can get there for about the same amount of money...:music_whistling:
  22. All I am reading there is „not this week“. I don‘t read „will be next week“, not even „planned for next week“... Let‘s just sit and wait. Or fly in the meantime. We still have a Hornet:)
  23. That sums it up very well. Short and clear.
  24. Nah, all good. Your frustration was absolutely understandable. I was stupid doing the spoiler so poorly but I was super stupid not editing it out right after Nooch pointed out my mistake.:doh: Really wasn't my best day in this forum yesterday. Btw I wrote a PM to Baltic (in case he doesn't come back to this thread on his own) and asked him to edit the quote too. EDIT: Done, thanks Baltic! Again, sorry for all the hassle.
  25. Well, I have edited it but if people quote my post there is not a lot more I can do except to apologize again. Which I do. Sorry folks, lesson learned.
×
×
  • Create New...