Martin2487

I have been thinking for a long time why the default position of FLIR and LTD / R is in the position STBY and SAFE? First of all, I think that if the plane is cold and dark then it should not be. But it has one more effect in the game. This default position means that if you load Litening, the FLIR switch must be cycled to detect litening. If I switch the FLIR switch to the off position and normally load Litening, there are no problems. If I use the NATOPS manuals for the airplane and especially the checklist, when switching off the airplane, the switches on the Sensor panel are set to off. I would like you to correct the default position of the FLIR switches to the OFF position and LTD/R to the AFT position. It would be a situation where the aircraft is cold and dark. It also makes more sense for me to have it in the proposed positions even if Litening does not carry the aircraft. Generally, for safety reasons (short circuit, etc.) do not power the relevant circuits if not used and I think that even people who have background in the aviation or navy has been mentioned that when it is not used it is in the off position. I believe it is a very minor fix but I am very pleased because it takes me two tasks when each start it move these switches to the OFF and AFT positions.

That would be a strange logic. Please think about what I wrote. I mean SAM cirle on SA page, not RWR information.

On the SA page, the Tunguska SAM system is designated S6. Which probably comes from the Russian designation 2S6. I think it's wrong because the US Navy will probably not use the Russian GRAU index. It also contradicts logic because other SAM systems are identified by NATO codes. So I think that the designation of Tunguska SA page should be based on NATO codes SA-19 Grison.

AGM-62 can be guided via data link even if the appropriate display is not selected using the sensor switch. But once you switch the sensor select switched to another display, you can't control the weapon without selecting the appropriate display. Which, in my opinion, is correct. The problem described above is in the attached track. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PG2ljmxxxaq77YxTOftOSteeHHlZm7Jv/view?usp=sharing

I intercede to get TALD as soon as possible. I think we need TALD for SEAD missions against more advanced SAMs and ships, more than Walley. The F-14 already has TALD, this thing is present in the game, so it remains to prepare aircraft systems. I know it'll do some work, but it's just a glider launched from an airplane like an unguided weapon, so I believe it won't require any sophisticated changes to the aircraft's systems.

No, I don't have it unchecked. I don't have to map anything like that. I only connected the joystick to the computer.

The start is always cold and dark (at the airport).

Why was it moved from the bug section to the wish list section? I don't think it's okay for the aircraft to have default switch positions other in single player and other in multiplayer. So I think it belongs to the bug report section. I would appreciate some feedback.

I found a difference between the default position of the FLIR, LTD/R switches in singleplayer and multiplayer. In the single player, the switches are correctly in the OFF and AFT positions. In multiplayer, the switches are in the STBY, SAFE position. It seems illogical to me, but the point is that this wrong default position in multiplayer means that in the case of the FLIR switch, it must be cycled to get the TGP ready.

Can't set laser code to laser designator when switch is safe position. I don't think that's accurate. For example, it should be possible to set the laser code on the ground. For comparison, LST can be set to ground. So I think it should logically be possible for LTD / R.

I think I found a bug. Because the PLID function was added to the SA page after the last update, I checked the link to the HUD and the radar page. The track includes a simple mission, one F/A-18 on the blue side and one IL-76 on the red side (AWACS is not in the mission.). On the SA page I changed the target ID on the hostile. LTWS is active on the radar, and I see that the target is still unknow after placing TDC on target. If the target is locked with LTWS, the radar display the target marked as a hostile. If I target lock with STT, the target is again unknow although on HUD and SA page is marked as hostile. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WEo0GJH2ebXqx5M1NpDftE-5XU0nJvzt/view?usp=sharing

But I'm talking about what we already have on the plane. Circle on HSI which shows whether it is possible to shoot or not and I claim that the calculation of that distance is wrong. I do not know exactly what the circle is called but I think that there is no problem that something is not implemented but that what is there now counts wrong. I appreciate the work of developers and I just wanted to help with feedback.

I did some tests. At a height of 46,000 feet and a speed of about Mach 0.9 I was able to reach a range of 65 nm JSOW. Yet I do not see IN RNG on HUD. I reported it as a bug(https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=244186). Yes, it is possible that the ring on HSI is not a dynamic launch zone, although it varies depending on height and speed. But I was a little annoyed that you closed the topic right now. I would like to say to someone from the developers because I believe that the bug is if I'm in the range parameters and the aircraft tells me not. The problem is that the HSI circle is stuck at a range of 58 to 59 nautical miles from the target. Although I have shown that it can be fired at a greater distance without any problems. The indicated altitude and speed are no extreme flight parameters to make the airplane unable to calculate. It is also illogical because the dashed line represents the predictive maximum range and the circle on the HSI varies with height and speed.

JSOW dynamic launch zone shows bad values in terms of maximum range. At high altitudes, the dynamic launch zone shows a maximum range 58-59 nm. The included track shows a situation where the airplane is at 46,000 ft and has a speed of about 0.9 mach. The JSOW range at the specified altitude is 65 nm. But HSI does not show IN RNG. I've done many tests and all were successful. Minor comment on dashed line that shows predictive maximum range. In my opinion, the dashed line shows the value of 64 nautical miles. As I said, JSOW currently has a maximum range 65 nautical miles. I could not achieve higher values. In most public materials, the range is 70 nm. Is the flight model completed? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1E6A-ZPskk1Cxq5IJycuRb_aXCHWtp3bd

What is the maximum range AGM-154 (at high altitude release)? In DCS, I have so far successfully launched on target at a distance of about 57-59 NM. In public sources, the maximum range is usually 70 NM (at high altitude). I am not able to reach this value in DCS. Or do you have some other experience and knowledge?

After the last update was on the map Gulf TACAN added Al Minhad Airport (showed 99) but the problem is that the map is on the same frequency TACAN beacon in Qatar which is called ALD. Furthermore, there are two VOR beacons with the same frequency (112.60 MHz) at AL Ain Airport. I appreciate the addition of navigation devices but I'd like to ask you to fix especially as regards TACAN at Al Minhad. The second TACAN at the same frequency causes erroneous navigation. Verified at F/A-18.

AGM-158 JAASM is in DCS F-16 weapon list. So maybe we can believe that when they do it for the F-16, they will add it to the F-18. But I don't think it's going to be any time soon.

I still hope it will also sometimes update AMRAAM missiles. Their performance is really terrible. Unfortunately, I do not know about any feedback when an update occurs. It's nice to have TWS but it degrades a lot that I can use the rocket at 12-14 nm even at higher altitudes. Most of the problems are that AMRAAM does not loft in the game.

Yes, it would be really great to get an answer from ED. The thread created in the bug section was merged with this thread. It would be enough to respond in the style of working on it. But I don't know what to think, if it wasn't a bug they would write or be wrong? Wags, or any of the developers, please reply to this thread. Thanks. edit: If you remember the Jetstream series of training Canadian pilots, they have master off, SIM boxed (in Store page) and countermeasures worked.

Drop countermeasures only with master arm After reading a series of manuals and resources, I have very much doubts that it would be necessary to activate Master arm. I think the safety is done through the dispenser and sensors on wheels. Even on this forum was from people who served in F/A-18C said that to drop countermeasures is not necessary to have Master arm.

@corn322 Great!!! Thanks for the upload. Do you have more such maps from this region? Among other things, I would be interested in airports and areas on the Russian side.

I select target RAID/FOV/HARM/ select(default I key, same procedure as in self-protect mode). Then use cage button(display shows HARM off). Then you can shoot.

Wags when can we expect an upgrade to AIM-120 for Hornet? I remember that you promised to upgrade Sparrow and based on the experience and AIM-120. Thanks for your answer.

I would be grateful for some feedback from the developers. The performances are very bad, the main problem is that the missile will not perform LOFT.

I attach a really short track. TGT waypoint was on the track in Kutaisi. Waypoint shifted spontaneously before the runway. I have already described and documented this behavior on the included track. But what's interesting is how the TGT waypoint literally drifts along the display. I believe the included track will help you remove this bug. It has been appearing for a long time. I would also be grateful if you confirmed this bug as reported. Track: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mNVFTa3CUvJG-nTf9lU8GKJVLCQmGCXV/view?usp=sharing