Lithion

They lower the weight of your aircraft, that's the part of the calculation that's already in the game. As for the aerodynamic difference, probably not, but I wouldn't put it high up on the priority list of an EA plane. Especially as they were hardly ever removed on an actual cruise.

Every proper mission has a threat evaluation, and with DCS you have all threats listed anyways. Were they MANPADS or other IR-guided threats? SA-13's (strela-10) have a bit more range and might surprise you. If the mission lists these threats you have to stay above 10-12,000ft and only do run ins where you flare a few times going in/out. The fact the hornet doesn't have enough countermeasures to do this multiple times just ties in with its lower fuel load and attacker role, as opposed to a CAS role.

From the pylon? sure. From the Hornet with another fuel tank or split rack mounted nearby? Maybe not. That's what i meant.

You also have to consider that a specific pylon doesn't mean a plane can mount a certain weapon. 2 Mavs might be mounted to close together to safely fire.

Answered in this very thread already: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3654060&postcount=4 It definitly was never fielded with dual Mav's per pylon, neither do any of the NATOPS weapons diagrams show it with double mavericks:

It's really not puzzeling at all, if you check out the voting thread which weapons people want, ATFLIR/HARM both have 400+ votes while GBU's have 115-ish votes. It's not a matter of 'this requires very little effort so they should add it first' because a project of this size has about a billion of 'little things they could add first'. It's about prioritising and they've actually made the effort of asking the community, this is the result.

If they add a Hilux they'll have covered 60% of all insurgent vehicles :megalol:

I knew I once supercruised the Hornet after dropping payload, is that a sim thing or actually plausible? :D

Click THIS And you can press the download button in the top right. Alternatively, the way I always ensure to have the latest version, is I make a local hyperlink shortcut to the above address in my FA18 docs folder.

If you want the unit integrated with another group of Iranian units, so they can respond together, attach triggers for it etc. it's way better to have it in the Iranian nation as well. Thanks for pointing out how to fix it for myself, I'll look into it and apply it to the mission in question. But really, if it's such an easy fix, it's still more efficient if ED included it in the main game without each user having to edit it for his/herself. Iran as a nation, though it has gotten some love in the previous OB patch, has felt a bit neglected in the light of Persian Gulf map being such a major focal point. These minor fixes would be an easy way to give some love to PG/Iran.

As the title says, could you please add the Tor missile system to Iran? They've fielded the Tor since 2005-ish, about the same era as the Hornet is aimed at. Even if the era doesn't 100% match, they've fielded it for a while now and helps create modern-day scenario's. Thanks!

^This, the plane will suggest which Mach number and altitude are most efficient/longest lasting (there's a difference!) on that page, It's on their to-do list, be it a little way down. After the radar fixes, JHMCS, HARM, and LTWS i think.

Or, in-game, use the rearmament window when you're landed at an airbase to equip the AIM-120 in a similar fashion as shown in the Mission Editor.

Safe to assume the Tor will as well then, as with AGMs

Looks amazing Heatblur, thanks for all the effort! Did you guys have to improve cluster modelling (ie making this improvement available in the future for other weapons) or did you just code the shit out of what you had at hand? :D Or bit of both..? :D

Please check both your Main Menu options menu, as well as the Mission settings, these two tend to conflict.

I fully agree, though I don't think it's necessarily that difficult to implement SAM fortifications and the like. Judging how the hightened FARP bases have collisions as well (though the targeting points are another matter) I would judge that as less difficult to fix than a core ME editor feature like saving a particular static template, if that's ever possible. Though we've seen some more ME improvements lately so here's to hoping they're looking at it, indeed some confirmation either way would be nice.

You haven't mentioned which plane, but I guess they're pretty exchangeable (and you own both FCIII and the Hornet looking at your sig). Notice how when you're aiming the AIM-7M(H) you can select a LOFT trajectory, notice how the dot changes orientation between LOFT and standard intercept trajectory. As for the AIM-120: Aiming for the dot just gives you the optimum launch angle for the missile. The missile will loft itself if it thinks that would be the optimal flight path to intercept the target. That's why you don't have another launch mode for LOFT. We will however get the option of MADDOG'ing the missile: to launch it off the rail with the seeker active, and locking on to whatever it can find first. Not sure if this last one is already live on OB, i'm a bit of an A2A noob in that regard.

Man this was hard, I had to roll a d4 to choose my favourites... Ended up calling HARM since it relies little on the other mentioned options.

Alas, the 'saving of static templates' they added recently is just a separate way of saving a template mission. Still hoping for either saving a static group, or for ED to add some sort of SAM dugout fortification to regular ground vehicles. (There are immovable ground vehicles anyway).

Personally waiting for the SA-15//Tor system to be added to the Iranian air defences. Shipments have been delivered to them from 2005-onwards.

Day-one purchase for me..! ;)

I'm surprised more stuff isn't breaking from update to update, it's kinda what I expected when I signed up for this alpha release. The plane now won't be like the plane on full release. But I think all the points mentioned in this thread can be summarized as: It's understandable, but still frustrating. I hope ED monitors this thread (silently) and looks at what they can improve on their end. Other modules might benefit from lessons learned. *EDIT* As a quick addition I'd like to note that ED has been really upping the communication with the frequent hornet updates and vids, so improvements are being made :D.

Assuming my previous comment is the case, which was only speculation on my part, you have to account the fact that they're probably dealing with at least 5-6 official internal branches next to knowing what's in the 2 public branches. Every programmer could also have a few personal branches where they push their daily work to. This is software development. They're human. They're working towards milestones (they've made public for one at the end of this month I believe?) and while we're experimenting with the plane in the meantime, I personally don't mind if a few things get mixed up, as long as the announced milestones are met at the announced time, unless otherwise communicated. Can't overstress enough that my assumption could just be plain wrong :D EDIT: ^This, the Hornet is in alpha/Beta/whatever, seeing the progress made over this summer lets me keep the faith all will be well.

Heard somewhere that they usually just copy/paste the changes listed in the commits, my guess is that between merging of development branches for pushing out an update, stuff can get lost/buried or just plain forgotten.