WOPR

BLUFOR aircraft only in this mission. I wasn't aware of the REDFOR issue in NTTR. BTW you can see the alignment issue on a smaller scale in the Caucus, but it doesn't seem to manifest as a catastrophic INS issue. Forums won't let me upload the 56 MB track file. Bignewy, have you attempted to replicate the issue?

GPS works fine on the A10Cs and AV8Bs in the same mission. This is not a factor in this case.

There appears to be an issue tied to INS alignment in the Hornet on the Nevada map. If this is the root cause tied to the release issue that's been fixed internally, great! 1. Weapon aim points are nonsense when using either the TGP or way points. The drop line is in the wrong position. This happens in CCIP or Auto. 2. Mission editor way point distances don't change on the HUD. It seems like the direction determined when on the ground during startup is what the HUD marker is stuck on. INS is verified as set to NAV. 3. The initial point isn't quite right, and the distance to it is 0.0 nmi when over 50 nmi away, like the INS is stuck at the initial point. Waypoint 0 after alignment is not the same as what can be seen on the F10 map with the cursor under the coordinates. Steps to reproduce: 1. Join a beta dedicated multiplayer server running the Nevada map (I'm confident it's patched) 2. Do an INS alignment prior to take-off. 3. Load up some bombs and the TGP. 4. Observe the issues above while trying the Hornet systems. You shouldn't need a track file to see this behavior. It's glaringly obvious.

It’s at the top of the bomb list for center and outer pylons.

ED said that the radar guy continued working on the Viper instead of returning to the Hornet. Original post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4077671&postcount=14

Wags said so. Check the comments on facebook.

The short answer is because this is what ED has decided to do. We can speculate on dependencies and difficulties, but the fact is that we don't know because ED has not provided any technical reasons for giving the Viper this feature first.

To my previous feature requests add: The ability to assign skins & automatically based on player name, aircraft and slot via scripting. Or better yet, add a player name to aircraft with decals instead of having to have dozens of skins for a squadron.

1. ATC Tasks for associated carrier units - i.e. aft and port plane guards, SAR helo, recovery tanker 2. Carrier ATC zone triggers that follow a carrier - i.e. turn on carrier lights in low visibility position without having to call inbound, recovery information passed to pilot when entering the CATC zone vice when 2 miles out a. If there are multiple carriers in a mission that are closely spaced, each could have it's own ATC and be responsible for different zones.

The ATFLIR pod is what you normally see on the cheek. It is a smaller diameter than the Litening Pod. If you look around on the forums or just the internet in general, you can find hints of an adapter for the Litening pod but nothing explicit. Also, it doesn’t seem like a configuration the USMC uses much. There aren’t any easy to find public photographs of the Litening pod on the cheek.

There's a mod available from https://throughtheinferno.com/mods/

We can talk about what we think ED should do and what they did to get the Viper out so fast, but the fact is we don't know and ED hasn't chosen to tell us must about why they did what they did (some reasons may be obvious and we are not legally entitled to much information) or how they're going to manage the timing of adding these features "developed in parallel." "Working on things" in parallel" isn't the same thing as "simultaneous release." i.e. The Litening Pod on the Viper is obviously farther along than the Hornet version, but IFF is obviously behind. We also know nothing about their finances. 125 full-time employees takes a lot of income to keep going. To me this is a sign of robust business, but this is just speculation. On ED knows really knows their balance sheet.

Assumptions about software are frequently just plain wrong. Prior to the F-16 mini-update, ED's last update on TWS just said there would "be a strong push." Nothing more about when it would it could actually be expected in relation to the F-16 TWS mode. Recommend staying on topic. The only opinion offered was "not knowing" and that's not much of an opinion. End of story. EDIT: corrected TWS update.

We don't actually know what ED means by "in parallel with the Hornet" since they pulled 2 Hornet programmers over to the F-16 to push for the early access release.

I'm just offering a tip that might help folks cope with the sim a little bit better. No subtext intended or implied.

I have noticed that the radar will get into a non-default PRI setting sometimes. I have seen it jump to PDI which is used with the AIM-7 when I don't have AIM-7s. I have also seen it change to MED PRI without any inputs from me. I assume at least one of these things is a bug. The radar appears to work best in interlaced mode. Click the OSB in the lower left side column of buttons until it says HI INTL or MED INTL the most important part is INTL. If the text next to the button says "PDI", select AIM-7s and then deselect them unless you are shooting AIM-7s. If you keep the radar in INTL and most definitely out of PDI you should have better results. The good news is that this appears to be reproducible so hopefully this will solve most of the problems you're having.

Q1: You should only need to clear DCS buttons that you are using in your profile. I.e. if your trigger used directly in DCS and you assigned the trigger to "ralt-" this will cause a conflict so you need to clear trigger assignments in the DCS controls menu. Q2: Dead zone may be required. Recommend you re-calibrate the axes first if you haven't already.

You must be doing something wrong. Try beating your head on one.

Carrier or dirt landing? Are you watching your AoA and using DLC? I assume flaps are set and stability control is on. It sounds like you are getting too slow. If your wings start rocking, you should do an emergency disengage of SAS ( stick paddle) and get your AoA under control.

Max range is probably only achievable in pre-planned mode (just guessing). Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Falling short just means you launched too far away. You are correct to launch high and fast. Personally, I get within about 20 nmi if I can before launching. For the hit no kill, just disabling is sufficient if you can go in and clean up. ED appears stop be experimenting with war head effects on the HARM and it changes a bit patch to patch. Also, DCS doesn't seem to care that an intact antenna is required for proper radar operation so it's all or nothing. When in doubt magnumx2. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

The difference appears to be that when using white hot the laser latches and black hot it doesn't. I haven't tried lasing in CCD mode so I don't know what the behavior is there. I also don't know what the correct behavior is supposed to be. I latched a point tracked a moving tank. Pickled a GBU-12. Latched laser on in white-hot and got a hit. Can someone else try to replicate?

I have the same issue with my TDC button. I have a deadzone of 20, axes saturate at 50%, and I have a curve of 20. I assigned an additional button to TDC-Depress. I think it's a physical issue with the button/axis controller.

I didn't use a profile with X-56 and was happier than results I have had trying use profiles. The main thing is to get close to the default button locations and make it so you can reach critical buttons (i.e. cage/uncage) easily. The details of the best way to setup your X-56 will depend on if you have Track IR/VR or not.

It will likely depend on whether or not the F/A-18 implements the message and what systems the message is implemented for. I don't know if the F/A-18C Lot 20 can generate all the messages.