BarTzi

That's the problem... I don't think you can. I can't figure out why it is even possible for the offset cursor to leave the DDI display without an indication of where it's at. The more I read about it the more I'm convinced that the ATFLIR offset video shows how it should work for all pods that have the offset function.

It's worth mentioning that the IN RNG marker isn't static. I've seen a few strafing videos of it near the 7 o'clock position. The one in DCS also isn't static. I think what should be brought to their attention is the distance between the pull-up cue and the VV.

Yeah, looks like it. Thanks.

This is a rather old bug that popped back recently. Basically, when you look at the S/A or HSI page as you approach a WP, the icon (small circle/dot) of the WP will shift and move away from the original location, eventually drifting away from the sequence line. to better understand this, take a look at the track file attached. Pay close attention to the HSI/SA as I get near the WP. WP icon sliding.trk

Moving the TDC above the top of the radar scope, and then back inside in under 0.2~ seconds will bump range. The opposite will reduce the scan range.

Well, then if it doesn't - how are you supposed to know if it's in range or not? Aiming for a higher target should affect the maximum rage when released from a certain altitude.

Since this is the version the Spanish air force is using, I think they paid the US government

Nothing new was introduced. It's been like that for a while.

It does, and A/G mode can't be caged so that might help. However, if Gripes has wind coming only from the west (blowing from 2-7-0 to 0-9-0) the position of the reticle in the mission is wrong. If the wind is coming from the left side of his hud, it means the bullets will drift to the right over time. If that's the case, the reticle should be on the right side of the target, forcing him to correct to the left and place the barrel to the left of the target. When you watch the video, you see his piper is shown on the left side of the target. In that case, placing the piper over the target (moving the plane and the barrel to the right) will make the drift more severe.

Why should it? It only moves sideways to account for wind. It won't move up and down on your hud, since it has the range cale. There's no point. And as for how the system works in real life, there are many videos online showing footage of the gun being used.

I think it's fair to ask for a status on units that were initially teased months ago. The 57 was only shown on his recent Viper video.

If you have a fixed scope that allows you to hit a target at X yards with zero adjustments (point, shoot, hit), then you can call it CCIP. Since it's probably not the case, a long range scope acts more like the manual option.

Because it's CCIP with a range limitation. Imagine going for a gun run and having the piper represent the bullet impact point all the way through your run. It will start very low and only cover the target while you are in range. That won't be comftrable or intuitive at all. You put the thing on the thing, and while in range - the bullets hit the mark. Sounds like CCIP to me.

I don't think anyone suggested it has to stay purely hardcore. What I will say, is this: assuming you have the gear and no physical disability, AAR in DCS is not complicated. It's not rocket science, and if you can do formation flying you are 60% there anyways. It's something that anyone on these forums can learn if they choose to. It doesn't take a crazy ammount of hours to get decent at it either. DCS map size and mission scale allows you to have a choice and not do it. You are almost never forced to use AAR in a mission. If you are not good at it, either learn how to do it or don't do it at all. What you are asking for is a short cut. You are asking the entire platform to change, and the skill ceiling to be lowered 'just because' you don't want to invest the time. I'm sorry, but if you are not physically incapable of doing it, there's no reason for the devs to spend time on this. As I said before - AAR is just the start. Soon people will be asking for autonomous carrier landing from the stack all the way down.

As a workaround , pickle once to get the pod to fire the laser, and pickle again to let the 65E off the rail.

I'm sorry that I have to be so direct, but if you don't have the time to train (it doesn't have to be daily), then don't go on sorties that might require AAR. Following this route, we will eventually end up with automatic CASE I pattern breaks at the push of a button because people are too lazy to master that, automatic field landings because who needs to learn how to land, automatic formation flying, automatic CCIP, automatic BFM and so on.

Probably not in our build

That's clearly not how it is IRL. Should be less noticable, especially from a distance. They will have to adress this eventually, since the lights merge at a distance (making the hornet a huge dot of light), and the wing lights go through the wings.

What if it's heavier, and the Hornet (for example) will limit G by the weight carried on the plane. Does that not need a software upgrade? I find that odd that people even claim that.

More pictures from mudspike: https://mudspikefiles.s3.amazonaws.com/original/3X/a/7/a7d8972e9aa038d9ac396f4dfd197ff0c4032e1a.jpg https://mudspikefiles.s3.amazonaws.com/original/3X/6/e/6ec416ae80111f2e6115e4d94276b7a0c75b624b.jpg Wildcats using the JHMCS (notice the HAFU):

I don't think they forgot, since it's part of the way the HARM is supposed to work in the Hornet. The override box is always checked in DCS (currently), so It will never trigger that sequence even if you get mud.

One of (if not the main) selling point of this module was the ATC. I'd like to hear some news about future plans to support multiplayer better, and assign different entities (tower, lso and so on) to different frequencies. The eye candy doesn't really matter, if at the end of the day the ATC doesn't work.

Can you provide the source for those statements?

This is the most important thing. As I said before - it will put modules at a never ending state of development. This is not how the development of those addons should be like. All of the additions you seek will be added to the bottom of their priority list, and when they get there (if they do), it will be after the full release of the module. It's becauuse those additiones are outside of the original scope of the program. The worst kind of additions. Development time, sure - and also money. There's a limit to how much you can spend on each of those modules. It doesn't really matter how good you are at waiting. People seem to think it's an easy plug and play adding those weapons to the Hornet. Just a low hanging fruit. You shouldn't try to satisfy your customer base by adding features that were not originally planned. The harrier could carry the 54, right? The Hornet is a mid 2000 airframe, so it couldn't. Basing it on a specific year is a very good decision, because it helps limiting the scope of the program. The A10C was a paid upgrade. Do you see the difference? Then let's boost the Hog's speed to satisfy customer needs, right? :smilewink: And let them shoot themselves in the leg by blocking potential upgrade paths to the module, or stepping in Rhino territory for no reason? All of that while spending more time and money after completing the plane already? It's not correct for year, because it's not correct for the year their plane is based on. There's nothing more to it unless they say otherwise. Ah, so how about you just use the airframe that can use that weapon instead? There are places and topics you should insist on, like a realistic implementation of the avionic systems, or features of the radar or the TGP. However, asking for every new weapon that is added to the game to be added to another module 'just because', is not going to get you anywhere.

MOOSE has all of those covered, if you are willing to give it a try.