BarTzi

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.

It's not generalizing. You expect any future weapon that is added to DCS to be added to each airframe that could carry it. This puts some modules at a never ending state of development. It doesn't work like that. There's a point in time where you go from developing the code, to maintaining the code and that's it.

Just keep in mind that this there are two parts to this. The first is the great idea you suggested, and the second is making the AI JTAC capable of changing laser codes when communicating with a plane. I always thought making those changes is low priority since making an overhaul to the JTAC system is probably low priority as well. After the F16 came out with a more true to life way ot changing the code, I don't know what's their take on this anymore.

No, you don't. You don't add all the weapons, and you don't add all the weapons to every plane. Why? Because it puts every plane in a never ending state of development.

+1 Happens to me as well.

Did you fly the pattern correctly? I find it hard to believe an AI will simply cut you off, especially since they should follow ATC instructions and commence on time. As for the tanker- that's bad mission design, as the carrier should have tankers in the air for that kind of situation.

You can guess by bringing up the HMD display. It will eventually display things like FLIR FOV, Closest friend , DONORS, OTHERS and FRIENDS. You will most likely not be able to do a whole lot more than marking a target point.

You mean - we should have less of Syria for more of Israel which wouldn't change the gameplay anyways? No thanks.

They still haven't

Keep in mind this laser is also dangerous. I don't want that kind of laser pointing anywhere near me. It's also a safety thing.

How can this be marked 'CORRECT AS IS' , if my bug report (which is also a result of the hud designation being super hard to control), was marked 'REPORTED'? It was improved a couple of months ago and then went back to being very jumpy and hard to move accurately. There's an issue with slewing the designation point on the HUD itself. Curves won't solve that, and your equipment doesn't matter. It's something in the code. I was using only my keyboard here, just to demonstrate there's something wrong with it:

Contrast is defenitely implemented. It is working only in night mode, as should be. For day mode ou should adjust GAIN.