captflyby

I put 1100 hours on the F/A-18C last year. Only about 100 this year for personal reasons, nothing to do with ED. There is a LOT of things that are not (yet) modeled in this jet, but for the money it is one of the best modules I have ever flown, in any flight simulator system. I have a former employee/friend who works for LM who used to be on the programming team of the F-35. YEARS of programming on that jet. It was always a work in progress...never completed...always being updated. There are some things I suppose I can live without in an equally complex simulation. Bottom line, for my personal use, the F/A-18C is a phenomenally complex jet, and I would imagine that you can program the thing for years and still not completely re-create its real life counterpart entirely. For me personally, at some point I have to move on...and now that the Hornet mini-updates page has been closed, I imagine ED has also. This is my mileage, yours may vary.

9000 hours in military and civilian IRL. Then I discovered VR, DCS and the hornet all about the same time. I have flown the DCS F-18C hornet for over 1100 hours in VR. Sometimes I have to remind myself ... it is just a game! Hornet is not complete...true. But you don't need it to be. So much to learn. Your biggest challenge will be finding those whom you like flying with, to work in concert with you. Lot's of those out there...just need to find 1.

I found Redkite to be the most detailed in his explaination of how to use the targeting pod:

Thanks Guppy, perfect fix. Can't tell you how much time spent trying to figure this out. Thank you for posting!

Updated: To hopefully answer a few more questions I didn't think about when first making this post. Hope it will help. __________________________ Recently my two tech guys each got the new EVGA designed 2080Ti video cards with the liquid cooling option. I had them hook up my HTC vive and install DCS 2.5 to test. __________________________ My machine right now: Intel Core I7 4790K 4.36 GHz 32 GB DDR3 1866 MHz Gigabyte Aorus GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 2x Samsung 860 EVO 1TB in Raid 0 Running DCS 2.5.29167 latest beta version. Using Caucus map. Tested with Su-25T Frogfoot aircraft module. Single player, instant action - do not remember which one. No shader mods. DCS settings are IP 1.0, Steam 100% All DCS settings are higher that "VR" but lower than "MED" With this I get a steady 45 fps in each eye (shows up in Frame counter as 45 fps), smooth video, but you get to watch the trees "grow" as you fly over. My tech's machine as tested today: Intel Core I7 8700K 5.00 GHz 16 GB DDR4 3000 MHz Evga Geforce RTX 2080 TI FTW3 Ultra Hybird Gaming 2x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB in Raid 0 Running DCS 2.5.29167 latest beta version. Using Caucus map. Tested with Su-25T Frogfoot aircraft module. Single player, instant action - do not remember which one. No shader mods. Other than that all is the same, DCS, matched all DCS settings. Running DCS 2.5.29167 latest beta version. DCS settings are IP 1.0, Steam 100% With this he got a steady 90 fps using all the setting I used. With "HIGH" setting everything was very smooth and clear at 45 fps. I have a PIMAX 5k+ coming (some day). I'll compare the results of it when it arrives. I am also looking forward to the ED VR patch with the terrain engine. Might make the 1080Ti I have now something to hang on to. Maybe...time will tell.

How did you correct the view for the barrel distortion from the light houses? I got the lenses, but the view shows all the peripheral edges bending in towards me. Tried all the "barrel distortion correction advice" out there - nothing works. Just wondering what you did to correct it...many others had the same experience.

This did NOT work for me, on either Left or Right DDIs.

Slot times for spawning Our squadron recently began deployment exercises with about 40 aircraft of various types & configurations. Most were tomcats and hornets. We have a "spawning officer" for lack of a better term - although we don't call him that, its his responsibility to coordinate the flight groups, SEAD, CAP, etc. The SO spawns in aircraft and then immediately moves them to another section of the carrier where spawning is not known to occur. Planes move in an orderly manner to start, arm, comm and get assigned to a catapult. The SO allows only those to spawn that can reasonably do so without blowing themselves up and someone else along with them. So far, this is the fastest, and most efficient method that I have seen us use, and the exploding has stopped. Type of mission is irrelivant to the spawning process, unless of course, we have land base departures, which we do from time to time. Hope this helps.

I noticed the other day that I could not get jester to come up in VR using HTC Vive with my voice attack. So I tried it using the keyboard. Nothing as well. So I turned off VR and discovered that the Jester menu only comes up, when I am in the RIO (back seat). Front seat, no menu using VR, not using VR, keyboard - nothing. Completely uninstalled the F-14 and then reinstalled. Same problem. Problem appears to have been before the latest update, and seems to still be there after the latest update. Makes jester, for me, unusable as a pilot.

I cannot bring up Jester in the pilot seat. I have to jump to the RIO seat to see the jester wheel. Am I doing something wrong?

I just spent 4.5 hours methodically working with the AGM-65F IR Maverick and the AGM-88C HARM missiles. I am not sure if this is a bug, bugs or just the way they are supposed to work. I checked threads, but found nothing similar so I am posting this. Sorry, no "track". Don't know what it is, or where to find it. I was in multiplayer (but same in single player), using a mission created by our Squadron, Caucuses map. Win10, SSD, 16GIG RAM, HTC VIVE VR. AGM-65F loads and launches fine. When it does manage to get a lock, it homes in nicely. The problem is it won't take a lock, unless you want to try about 20 times and even then, it picks what it wants to lock on to, not the pilot. Now the AGM-65Es work like a charm, but you have to have a 2nd person lasing. The HARM is not any better. Of the 8 HARM launched, only 2 struck any target at all, and the remaining missiles missed by a good 1/2 mile each. Not even close to any radar that they were supposed to be homing in to. But the IR Mavericks have to have some way for the pilot to designate the target to lock on to, not just a random jump when it feels like it. The HARMS are completely useless unless they become more accurate. I realize this is beta. Maybe this will help someone figure this out. This has been going on for quite some time now. Thought I'd mention it, because it doesn't look like there are any improvements in the two systems yet - at least from my usage viewpoint, over the past 4 or 5 beta patches. Thanks.

A 1950s Corvair, 1960s Aston Martin or an early 70s muscle car. They had power, guzzled gas, were impressive to look at and you could feel the power as you just barely put your foot down on the gas. On the other hand, the year 2000 ushered in a host of luxury sedans that had cushy, warm, adjustable seats, ABS braking, satellite radio, GPS on screen navigation, more reliable engine performance with computerized communications and fuel injected systems - just to name a few. It does not mean one was better than the other or easier or harder to work with. Its just what it was at that time in history. The 50s & 60s knew nothing about the developments to come, so they worked with what they had. The Tomcat is a 50s 60s powerhouse with no frills, no computer to think for the pilot, none of the cushy advancements in technology that you have become accustomed to in say the Hornet or the Harrier. One is not better or harder than the other. They are what they are in their time of history. Don't compare the Tomcat to what you know of other planes. Let it be itself, unique in history as one of the most iconic birds ever to grace the skies.

+1

Thanks guys for the response. I thought so. But its good to have theories validated from time to time. Add on: I note for others, since my post, I found out that you can log into the map, when on a mission, go to the SAT image, and it should show you all your targets while in flight. You can then get coordinates of the one(s) you are looking for and program them in while on your way to the target(s). BUT...this will only work if the mission planner has allowed you to "see" the targets on the map. If they don't show up, then you are back to hunting and pecking.

I'm sure this would apply to any weapon system where we have to use the TV/DDI view for targeting... The other night we were training and I was attempting to lock on an IR Maverick to a target. The location of the target was unkown. You have to "hunt" for it on the screen. The problem I am having is that all the "target" potentials look like little specs, even when the FOV is zoomed IN. By the time you are close enough to distinguish the objects, you are low enough to get shot down easily or too low to then fire on the target you can now recognize. I also forgot to mention I was VR and was also zoomed in in VR mode, which adds to the challenge. Is there a way to go, ex. F2 to see the potential site and a way to zoom in close to identify the target in DCS, like we do with the MAP feature, not having to rely on the "zoom" in the aircraft DDI itself. I realize the answer is good advance takeoff intell. Identify your target prior to departure. But mission planning doesn't always go the way you wish it would, you are stuck with flying blind and hunt/pecking for a speck while trying not to die in the process. I'm sure its true to life, but in a game, there's got to be a better way? I did ask this of the mission planners. Their response was that I shouldn't have taken the mavericks. Totally not the issue. Maverick or no, there has to be a better way that hunting & pecking amid all the same little dots on the ground to identify a radar installation.

There is a mod that I have used that places ILS landing systems on the airports in the Caucuses. I have used it. It does allow you to fly an accurate ILS landing on land based airports within the Caucuses. It is called "Caucasus and NTTR ICLS Mod". I got it off the downloads section of the DCS web site. Used it one time. Have never had the need to fly ILS in bad weather. We always end up on Carrier in Case III. But it does work. Only problem I have with it or any other mod, as a mod, you have to keep reinstalling it every update.

Not sure what you mean by "simulate". If you hook up your VR, select the appropriate check boxes in the settings menu, then when you log out and back in to DCS, DCS should automatically recognize the VR. From then, its all done in the VR headset. VR forum might provide more insight.

Thank you grunf

Does anyone know which of the 2 engines our current hornet is modeling? General Electric F404-GE-400 or F404-GE-402 Reason I ask, is that the 402 offers enhanced performance. F404-GE-400 engine is approximately 10,700 pounds with maximum afterburner thrust in the 16,000 pound class. The military thrust of each F404-GE-402 engine is approximately 10,900 pounds with maximum afterburner thrust in the 18,000 pound class. In the long run, it doesn't make that much difference in performance, especially depending upon loadout, but I was more curious than anything.

Set comm1 or comm2 to 127.500 Announce inbound Lights will come on, IF it is "night" Lights go off after successful landing Note: I think light should go ON and STAY ON during ANY bad weather, regardless of time of day. But that's just me...

I am relatively new to DCS. DCS is currently the only flight sim I use. I believe it is the best flight sim out there for me. In the past 12 months I have logged about 900 flight hours in DCS, most in the Hornet. I have spent an enormous amount of time trying to get the VR settings to improve for DCS....no luck. Performance in large part, depends on how the software was written to begin with. On another of my flight sims, using the same hardware, I get well over 244 FPS, smooth as butter, on a monitor. I7 1080Ti 16GIG. Had 32gig but downgraded, DCS doesn't need that much. My programmers tell me, and I believe it, that you will never get the high performance specs you are looking for unless the DCS engine is redone to make that happen with multi thread capabilities. I have a third flight sim, that no matter how much fancy hardware you throw at it, at no where near max settings, it will bring that hardware to their knees. It is just the way the programmers wrote the game. Now for DCS, don't whine. I use VR and on my best day it is 45FPS. Looking straight up into a blank sky I can get 90 FPS so I know it is not my hardware or settings; but no matter what the tweak, can never get above 45FPS and in some cases it is much lower. That is REALLY BAD, especially at the VR lenses suck to begin with. Until DCS is re-written with multi thread capability, and realistically I don't see that happening, ever, my programmers tell me that it will always be what it is, and I have no intention of throwing $10K worth of hardware at a free program to get 5FPS increase. This is my mileage, yours may vary.

Are you flying multiplayer? I believe that you default to whatever the mission designer programmed when in multiplayer.

FA-18C

The choice of aircraft is subjective. Only you can decide which one you prefer, and only by flying them will you decide. I bought several before deciding upon the Hornet. It's not so much the plane you choose, but the instructor you choose. YouTube has many good instructional videos done by competent people. But, videos don't let you ask questions that will inevitably arise. Find a "person" with a good working knowledge of the plane you choose to fly to instruct you. Supplement that with videos. A flying squadron, with a good training program, is a great place to start - but they have to be flying / training with the plane you have chosen.

I use VR and as such have to "center" the view each time prior to beginning. I use voice attack. With my voice I can "raise seat" or "lower seat" or "center" with my voice, and I never have to take my hands off the stick & throttle. My mileage, yours may vary.