BarTzi

Hi BIGNEWY - thanks for taking the time. There might be something off with the track. I'm talking about slewing the TGP in A\A mode. When I watch the track, I see you slewing the radar brackets. Your plane is not equipped with a targeting pod, but this might be due to differences between 2.7OB and your dev version.

I used the keyboard when I recorded this track (it also doesn't work when I use a mini stick on the throttle or a 4-way hat). This is only true for A\A mode. It works just as it should in air to ground.

I noticed that when using the targeting pods (both litening and atflir), I can't slew the pod in air to air mode using two inputs at the same time (up and left for example), which means I can't move it diagonally. It will move either up, down, left or right only. Reporting this because I don't think air to air mode should actually change the way the TDC interacts with the pod. This limitation does not exist when using the pod in air to ground mode. tgp air to air slew.trk

That's just the brackets adjusting to the relative size of the target. The expanding scan zone (the square) is missing (both symbology and logic)

Said target box is shown here.

It allows you to navigate between your own or ED's bookmarks. It's just a coordinate for the free camera (F11) to go to, as far as I can tell.

-what if the wind blows from the direction of the land? - I don't see the issue. Place it somewhere that makes sense in the first place to avoid potential issues. -how close are we allowed to go to land?(especially to stay realistic) - That's a mission maker choice, not a game developer choise. (can also be added as an adjustable value for this specific task. When the task ends, the carrier should follow it's original path of waypoints in the mission editor). -what if there're other objects ie. oil rigs in the way - AI in the game itself should avoid collision, but this is yet again an issue of placing the carrier in a suitable place in the first place, aka a mission designer's choice. -for how long does the carrier need to sail into the wind? This is a mission designer choice, again. Ideally, you should be able to select the start and end times for this task. So you know this starts much earlier IRL than at the time of recovery - on blue water in the middle of the ocean it might work just to turn when it's needed, but in confined areas such as the Persian Gulf it takes a good bit of pre-planning. Which is why, in my opinion, it is the responsibility of the mission editor to make it happen. I'm not saying this is an easy task. However, I do think it should be an option in DCS. I can do all of the above with MOOSE, and even more (cyclic ops for example).

Stumbled upon this completely by accident. This mode is super useful for mission makers, as it allows creation of bookmarks and will quickly move the free camera from one to the other. My request is to keep the camera settings while travelling from bookmark to bookmark. As it is right now, if I choose 'look down', I have to select this option every time I switch to a different bookmark.

The rectangular zones are a very good addition to the mission editor! Thank you very much for this addition. I was thinking about two way to take it further. 1. Please consider alowing us to add (and also remove) vertexes to a rectangular zone. You can limit it to a maximum of 20-30 (and a minimum of 3 or 4). Having the ability to control the number of vertexes will truly give us the option to create very costumizable zones. 2. A tool that would let us rotate a given rectangular zone could be very helpful as well.

Take a look at a class called NAVYGROUP (it's in moose). It will give you the ability to turn the carrier into the wind, and it has no ATC connected to it. However, I absolutely agree that turning into the wind (from XX:XX until YY:YY) should be integrated as a task in the mission editor.

ED, thank you so much for adding weapon restrictions to the historic mode - it's really good to have this as an option. I noticed that some weapons are not affected by this. For example: GBU 31 (v2 and v4), and GBU32, can all be selected for the hornet when the mission takes place in a time before JDAMS became operational, while GBU-38, 31v1 and 31v3 are restricted. I would also like to note that you can easily bypass this system, if you don't set up the inventory of the airfields that are used in the mission, to match the weapons restrictions of the historic mode. Can those two be connected somehow in the future?

Since ED didn't mention this feature specifically, can we get a statement?

ED could help with one task. At the moment, if a parking spot is blocked - no one can spawn there. I think that every spot should have paths to all CATS (with one primary cat), and if the primary cat is blocked by either heavy load of traffic or static objects, the ai should taxi to the secondary cat (and so on).

I don't think the order is accurate. When I spawn 8 AI, they will always take the elevator parking spots first (12,11,5,6,7,8,9,10)

I checked again, and it happens only when the carrier is on the move. I understand why the plane symbol is affected, but I can't understand why SEQ1 moves across the moving map, as I taxi in circles (this video: )

I'm struggeling a bit with the HSI. I think it started shortly after the last major update (2.5.6.60645). The issue is that after alignment, the HSI does not follow the T-up logic, and instead displays most of the symbols in false positions. I triple checked that I'm starting up the jet correctly, and just to make sure, recorded the following videos in a mission where the jet is already up and running. As I load the mission, the HSI works fine. A couple of seconds into the video, most of the icons will instantly move counter clockwise, and stay there. On top of that, the flight plan will start moving as you move the plane, if you continue after this issue occurs: I attached a track and the mission I used to record it, so you can take a look as well. hsi after cv alignment.trk CV alignment issue.miz

Just to clarify, he means the A/A reticle:

I don't think it's coming.

We did. It's exactly the same as the LITENING.

The position of the coordinate display is slightly different than real life. There are two differences: 1. The entire coordinate display is too close to the sensor priority diamond (can be seen in the video below). It should be moved slightly to the left. 2. N, E, ELEV, should all be aligned (start at the same position). Grid is fine the way it is. It should look like this: N XX XX XXX E XX XX XXX ELEV XXX (elev does not display the unit of measure) At the moment, it looks like that in DCS: N XX XX XXX E XX XX XXX ELEV XXX I apologize for the bad quality. I will try to find a better video \ pic. Here's another photo of the coordinate format. Notice the elevation line doesn't have the unit of measure (it's feet all the time). https://i.imgur.com/6X6f5Wl.jpg

There's a contradiction between the real life offset use, and the way it is implemented in DCS at the moment (I chose to report this ahead of time, after watching the ATFLIR video made by Wags). I can't say anything about the LITENING pod, but as far as ATFLIR goes, this is how the offset function works: Using offset does not move the cursor independently. The cursor will remain in the center of the display. Slewing the cursor does move the pod, while it tries to keeps track of the original object (in the brackets). The end result is: you should be able to track object A while lasing\targeting object B.

I posted this video originally, and sent it to ED at the time. I hope it will make it in, since the current implementation is not correct.

If they wanted to, they could have added it instead of the Spanish LITENING. I don't think they will add another targeting pod to the Hornet, even if it is the nitehawk (the nitehawk was the original pod they intended to include).

To be fair it's monday, and those videos take a while to make.

Fri13, it looks like you don't understand how projects like the Hornet are designed. ED's development team made a list of available features, sensors and weapons (available information, time and project cost can affect this list). They are sticking with the list. This is responsible project management, which helps avoiding feature creep. You can't expect them to go back and add every new weapon to all of their modules as it becomes available in real life. That's not realistic...