backspace340

Same - I really don't mind it, I imagine it'd be a lot worse wanting the mouse but not being able to find it because your mouse moved - or the cursor has got stuck behind your head. Also I've no idea how you'd handle the sensitivity of the mouse needing to be quick enough to traverse 180 degs around you as you switch from left/right side of the cockpit but also needing to be precise enough to click buttons.

See Wags' second latest update in the mini update thread - he already told us it wasn't coming today. Judging from the very latest update, it might not even be coming next week (it's ambiguous, but it sounds like only the AA radar update is definitely in next week's update). The latest newsletter also makes it clear it won't be coming today, looks like you're going off info in an older newsletter: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3669278&postcount=165

Press Undesignate / Nose Wheel Steering button.

Course and heading are different things - the heading select button is to the top left of the middle screen (course select is top right). Press and hold the heading button, then set a heading on the UFC, then engage HSEL (you don't need to press on/off). There is not yet an AP mode that will follow a flight plan, if that's what you were hoping.

Don't think he needs one to be honest - Wags gave the short-term roadmap a couple of mini-updates ago and every person working on the Hornet has at least two things in their pipeline and none of them were ATFLIR. There's only four Open Beta updates left before the end of 2018, you'd have to be really optimistic to think they're gonna finish all of their pipeline, and then start and finish the ATFLIR in that time. They've said they're over-hauling the FLIR functionality ingame first (so that trees won't glow white-hot) and that they'll do ATFLIR after that's finished.

Sounds like you might have a binding conflict with TDC depress and radar elevation. One other thing - to lock a contact you want to put the TDC over a brick and press Sensor Select Right (AACQ) which will lock that specific brick - if instead you press TDC depress it'll do a spotlight search (a 20 deg scan around your TDC) and lock anything it finds - so you might lock a brick further away than the one you're after.

If they give us the newer GBU-12, I think that means we won't be able to carry as many as they need the digitally enabled racks (like JDAMs). The old style GBUs can be dropped from the same racks as the Mk82s/3s, so we'd be able to take 10 - new style we'll probably only be able to take 4/5. It sounds like the only advantage of new style is being able to change the code in the air (though I'm not sure) - if so I'd kinda prefer the older style!

Frankly the answer to that is to stop discussing bug reports, not to stop making them. It's really easy for ED to dismiss a bug report if it's something they don't want to deal with - it doesn't need 16 pages of bickering from forum members, most of it trying to stifle the report. I don't think having bug reports only conform to your standard of what you think is useful is helpful either - often it's bugs found in unusual scenarios that lead you to something more fundamental that's broken.

It's a module in development, and in early access, people are helping ED by making bug reports. Bug reports do not mean 'DROP EVERYTHING AND FIX THIS RIGHT NOW' - it's simply a report for ED to investigate and prioritise as they see fit. I work for a software development company and I appreciate customers who report issues they find, we can then track them and prioritise accordingly - it does not mean that those bug reports dictate the content of our sprints, and it would be really unhelpful for other customers to discourage bug reports just because they themselves don't see the value in them.

Didn't have any questions tbh - I made this in the bug section (no idea why it's been moved here), not sure what classified information would need to be involved as it's a publicly available concept, the indicator just needs adjusting. Other modules have more accurate Rne/DLZ indicators.

The Rne indicator is meant to represent the range at which, if you fire, your missile is capable of reaching the enemy (even if they turn 180deg and run directly away). The current indicator in the Hornet does not seem to be accurately representing this range - in the attached tracks (taken in OB 2.5.3.23225), I fire a set of missiles at fairly regular intervals, all within Rne but only the missiles fired at the very end (from within 4nm) actually reach the target, the rest fall short with no energy. I tried both with lofting and without to see if that made a difference - it seemed slightly better without lofting (but still 4 of the missiles I fired within Rne didn't get anywhere near the target). The target has no chaff and was painted with my radar the entire time. aim7s.trk aim7snoloft.trk

Great, so, seeing as how neither of us know what the correct behaviour is, instead of telling ED what to do about it how about we let them review the tracks and decide whether it's something they want to fix or not? Perhaps when they've done that, they can let us know their decision by saying [NOT A BUG] or [REPORTED] in the title and we can stop discussing this to death. In fact, even better - this duplicate thread was made in the Bug forums and it's been marked [ALREADY REPORTED], not [NOT A BUG], so there we go - it's a bug according to ED. Case closed: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=223126

Seriously? Surely the easiest fix is just to make the FCS consistently behave in a non-lethal way, as it does when taking off from a cold start with the flaps in auto. Just because we don't know for certain doesn't mean we're incapable of using some common sense. Answer me this - if you were a test pilot and you found this behaviour in the real Hornet, would you report it as an FCS issue, or would you just think 'well the NATOPS tells me not to, so I'll just keep that to myself'?

Check out the Canadian TV series Jetstream which shows you the process of training people to use the Hornet - think it's available on Youtube (and I know Wags said he took some inspiration from it).

It works with something like the mini-joystick on the back of the TWCS throttle (if you just use it in one axis), though it's a bit of a waste of a perfect TDC control. Right now I've got it assigned to buttons, but would also really love to use the pinky wheel for it - I know Wags also has the same throttle so hopefully he can understand and hear our pleas...

No think you're misunderstanding - the wheel scrolls from 0 to 100, when it's at 0 he wants the elevation to be at it's bottom limit, when it's at 100 he wants it to be at it's maximum limit, and for 50 to be the mid-point of the elevation (so the elevation indicator right in the middle) - and the same for all points in between, so if he puts the scroll wheel at 75, then that's where it stays. You can see a similar control principle with the Harrier nozzle axis - 75 on the controller is 75 on the nozzles. Right now it doesn't work like a 0 to 100 scroll at all, different positions on the scroll wheel add to the elevation at different rates so if I have the scroll wheel at 75 it's (fake numbers, rough example) adding +10 elevation every second so if I leave it at 75 it will continue raising the radar until it's at its maximum azimuth. If I then put it at 49, it'll slowly move the antenna until it reaches the bottom elevation azimuth limit.

This issue is not what's described in 2.10.1.3 - the stabilator is neutral, it's the LEF and TEF causing the pitch up. This thread really didn't need 12 pages of discussion (which is why I originally made it in the bug forum, not the discussion forum) - if it's not a bug then ED will mark it [NOT A BUG] and disregard it. If it is, they'll correct it when they're good and ready. It doesn't need everyone's opinion.

I'm not complaining (and I think it'll largely depend on other graphics settings - MSAA/PD for how easy it has been to spot), all I'm saying is that I see a pretty big difference between visibility yesterday before the OB patch and today after it. And I haven't changed any settings since yesterday, so that can't be an influence here.

Has anyone else noticed a difference with this since the last OB patch? It seems to me like they've added some slightly larger imposters (if that's the right word) that appear at longer distance - I was able to see helicopters on the horizon at 7-10nm or so (something I definitely wasn't able to do before!), and it's really easy to see jets flying around from 3-5nm. I've made no other changes since the last patch was installed. I play in VR (Samsung Odyssey).

I haven't completely nailed down the steps to reproduce this one, but I can make it happen fairly easily. Arm a plane with rockeyes (I think it'll actually work for any munition with a fuze/settings, but that's what I've got in the track) and AIM-7s, have the stores page open. Select the AIM-7 (which will put you in AA master mode), then de-select AA master mode, select RE on the stores page and try to set a fuze. The buttons are unresponsive. If you cycle the RE selection then it fixes itself and the buttons become responsive. Track attached. storesstuck.trk

Haven't seen this reported yet - the PRF button doesn't cycle between HI/MED/INTL when you have the AIM-7 selected. Instead it just boxes 'PDI' (which I think is what shows when you lock a target as well) - pressing it again simply returns to INTL. Track attached. You can, with intermittent success, change the PRF you're using with an AIM-7 selected by first selecting the AIM-120 (even if you don't have any equipped), changing the PRF and then selecting the AIM-7 again - about 50% of the time the PRF selection will carry over, the other 50% the AIM-7 will change the default back to INTL. prfpdi.trk

Try switching the PRF - i find high to be much more effective at picking up targets than interleaved or medium.

This community is so unnecessarily aggressive at times - my first words clearly stated I know the correct procedure. The Hornet is in early access and bugs with the FCS are still being worked on - I found strange behaviour and reported it following EDs reporting guidelines. If you don't like reading bug reports, don't read the forums.

+1 no need for all the fighting, today was just the last day for new features in the normal cycle that's been followed for months now. It would've taken one sentence from Wags or NineLine to reset expectations that were fairly obviously being held since the October timeline was announced. They might still release in October with a special patch but a little communication goes a long way.