launchedsquid

I don't believe Russia or the USSR were ever keen to build Nato navigation aids.

Maybe I've missed something. When I turn the dial above the AMPCD I just see black box with "AUTO X" the "X" being a number between 9 and 1. Brightness doesn't change though. The night/day switch doesn't change anything on it, and the sym and night/day rockers don't seem to do anything either. Also, it's a bit blurry now. I have deleted the fxo and metashaders2 folders already, does anyone have any other ideas or info, have I missed a setting somewhere?

I think you've misunderstood the whole point of my reply. I wasn't suggesting ANYTHING about the performance or capability or ANYTHING about GBU-12's vs JDAMS. I was replying to Notso who was criticising GBU-12 performance in a JDAM thread. I said "GBU-12's aren't JDAMS". You started talking about "accuracy/effects", "classified info" and "Kuwaiti bunkers". None of that is relevant to what I said. All I was saying is JDAM is a different type bomb guidance kit then a Paveway. I think you tried to read between the lines and have come up with a whole different conversation. I hope I cleared that up, have a nice day.

In terms of JDAM's and GBU-12's are entirely different weapons. JDAM stands for Joint Direct Attack Munition, and they are GBU-31, GBU-32, GBU-35, GBU-38, GBU-54. GBU-12's are part of the Paveway family. They are made by different manufacturers.

GBU-12's aren't JDAM's.

You say "DCS JDAM's are way too accurate", others say JDAM's are a "almost useless weapon". I can't help that think the truth lays in between.

I'd love to read a more detailed explanation here, because I find GBU-38's extremely accurate (or at least as accurate as I need to destroy most armoured vehicles, I did a 4 gbu vs 4 apc single pass just two hours ago, all targets destroyed, all releases were "in range"). Maybe our definitions of accuracy differ from one another, or perhaps our technique of designating a target is different? If I drop from 30,000+ft (typical for me) and be sure my tpod designator is on the target when I'm "in zone", it's just about a sure thing for me. My accuracy isn't quite so good if I'm going for an "in range" drop, but I've always put that down to targeting errors from longer range. Also, I always aim for under the vehicle, as if it isn't there, basically I aim just inside a wheel, or a track, rather then the top of the vehicle, and I don't use area or point track, just ground stabilized. I will say though, I have extreme difficulty from nearly any range if my target is on a mountain side or some other very steep ground, at that point I's swap gbu-38's for mavs or something. Like I said, I'd love for you to give me a bit more detail in what you're doing, maybe the problem could be in technique.

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way here. The Hornet is a beast at slow speed, small radius, high alpha turns, there really isn't much out there that can even compete with it in that arena, it's not just good at it, it outclasses just about anything at it. The Hornet is however not especially good at high G-force and or high speeds, 7.5G limit is outclassed by many aircraft in DCS and the Hornet has quite a draggy airframe and is reasonably slow against most of the fighters it will go up against. Add to that it's power to weight ratio, if heavily loaded, can be quite poor too and you'll find it difficult to outrun or out accelerate many other fighters too. That starts to inform your tactics. If you merge with another fighter, you'll likely want to do it at a relatively slow speed, 400kts or thereabouts, and try to turn as tight a circle as you can without bleeding the hard to get back energy. Your goal is to turn in a tighter circle then the other guy, then you can start to gain angles, and only pull lead when your ready to shoot. You'll be balancing off turning tighter against bleeding energy, you'll want to force a one circle fight, you'll want to retain your energy as best you can until the "moment" that you are in position to fire, then you cash that energy in and take advantage of the care free handling, stall resistance and incredible alpha and pull lead for the shot. Just be careful, if you pull lead and trade your energy away at the wrong time, you might leave yourself with few options to continue the fight. If you have AIM-9X's the Hornet can just about shoot down someone who is directly behind them if you can pull the nose around enough fast enough.

As far as I'm aware, ATC is only implemented for cruise and half flaps, ATC doesn't hold in full flaps, or at least, it hasn't for me. if you're having issues with ATC not holding in cruise, check your throttle assignments, they might be "wobbling" and turning it off (throttle input will disable ATC)

In the hornet, if you have the speedbrake deployed when you extend the gear and flaps the hornet automatically retracts it, if you extent the speed brake on approach after you have configured for landing the hornet automatically retracts it again. The airbrake will not stay extended until after you have WoW, then it will extend when commanded and stay up until retracted by the pilot. Normal procedures, hornets don't land with speedbrake extended.

Yes, Litening is just a place holder because we wanted some form of TPOD a bit quicker. The reason that Hornets don't use sniper pods is because the Navy don't own them. My understanding is the difference between ATFLIR and Litening II is the ATFLIR is lighter and the US Navy own them.

the natops manual has the proceedures for setting the alert aircraft, basically all the preflight stuff, the alignment and nav settings etc is already done, has to be redone at least every 4 hours, the pilot and crew only need to do the minimum to fire it up and get going.

I don't know where you live, but a full moon is bright enough to drive a car without headlights.

have you tried moving the gamma slider? worked for me

I found the same problems, when rearming the ground crew complaining that the engines aren't idling, when refueling the ground crew complain that there is no fuel in stock, on the F-14, A-10C, AV-8B, so that has to be an ED thing right? Three modules from 3 devs?

turn the gamma down a bit and it's fine.

I'm not aware of any variant of the AGM-65 that has "man in the loop" guidance after launch.

I haven't tried keeping the systems on after a flight but you can use ground power to power up all the systems without starting the engines, you can load target coordinates etc. I just followed the checklist from A1-F18AC-NFM-500 NATOPS POCKET CHECKLIST There are also "Alert/Scramble Launch Procedures" for "setting the alert" (which involves starting up a plane and getting it completely ready to fly before shutting it down to stand as alert five, I imagine that after landing, if you followed the same procedure, you'd be in the same condition) and "alert five launch" (a much faster startup procedure with INS ready to go) I'm unsure about sharing the actual checklist, it could breach rule 1.16, you could find it quick enough with a google search though.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4175003&postcount=86 01-16-2020 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DCS F/A-18C Hornet by ED TWS - AUTO scan centering does not center antenna elevation on L&S. ACM entered from TWS incorrect. L&S/DT2 trackfiles should appear above the LAR Indicator. AIM-9 Tone does not come through headphone / helmet - fixed. AIM 9 Not firing after selective jettison. Fixed TD BOX Guns inside 3000 occluded. Ground Targets will appear on SA Page if engaged - Fixed R/BL Harpoon off axis warning - Fixed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Considering the update prior to this was just before Christmas and there was the Christmas and New Years holidays and still only a 26 days gap between releases I'd say they've still kept up with the schedule. So calm down a bit.

WOW!

The Air Force doesn't carry three Mavs on the triple rack though, because the rocket motor plug in the mav can hit and cause critical damage to the stabilator.

Gotta spend those tax dollars on something, and they won't spend them on healthcare, so... Missile Trucks.

my understanding is that the litening pod was a shortcut, something ED added because when they had a poll for what features we wanted to prioritize we asked for a TGP. They're not modelling a generic Hornet, they're modelling a specific Hornet Bu.No. 165407 as it was in ~2005, it was the third last F/A-18C delivered to the US Navy. As such it was never supposed to have a Litening pod, the US Navy don't use them. It was always supposed to have the ATFLIR pod, but ED aren't ready with that yet, again my understanding is they are developing improvements for the way DCS does FLIR and they want to work on the ATFLIR after that work is done, to not double handle that kind of work by developing two types of FLIR for the ATFLIR. So the litening was just a stop gap. They said we will get a cheek station for it, I've heard others say we won't, I really don't care if we do or not so I'm happy either way, but it could still be in the works. One thing they have to do before they give us the cheek station is some 3d work for the mounting, given they're 3d artists have been working on the Viper for the last year and given it's probably a low priority (if even a priority at all) that alone could be the hold up. Ultimately I'm just guessing, trying to read between the lines to figure out this stuff, and someone else could have interpreted it differently, or have more information, so I could be off the mark and they might correct me, but that's how it looks to me.

wel if you want a "realistic" loadout, most US Navy fighters don't carry any tgp on most flights. Also, can you link me to the announcement that we won't get the cheek station option for the literning, I haven't seen that.

it's not news, they've outlining their timeline regarding the tws for the hornet for a while now, people just aren't paying attention.