M2K

That's a great piece of work! The documentation itself is masterpiece! Many thanks!

See https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4002562&postcount=90

Using the closest (even if not close to the target) WP's elevation as a reference for LGB makes very little sense to me. This behaviour only impacts LGB, as said, not JDAMs and I see no reason why the behaviour would be so different. Flying a mission without setting any WP makes bombing perfectly accurate. By the way, it's OK to set a waypoint at 20000 ft above the target in real life, and a dive to a target is not really safe when delivering standoff weapons :)

You nailed it! Changing the WP altitude solves the problem. I now have a 100% hit ratio :)

I now just use the pod to transfer coordinates to JDAM bombs. 100% hits and way more flexibility (larger domain/true fire and forget). Best tutorial is here :

I'm afraid it's not that easy ... I dropped around 100 GBUs today, trying multiple parameters and methodoly changes and I see a clear and repeatable gap on the very most of them. I dropped them all by the book, as regards the procedure, of course. Speed and altitude are not the most influencal factors. The AUTO mode is broken somehow, and drops the bomb up to 10 seconds late. Diving (not ideal) or switching to MAN to drop it in advance makes it impacting all time. But a stabilized flight at a locked altitude with AUTO generates more frustation that impacts on target :) There are too many people missing their targets to be just a procedure misreading ... I discussed that today with several other people, they all suffer from this issue.

+1

During real operations involving mode 4 use, I saw a lot of pilot putting a rubber band on the stick button to activate IFF interrogation permanently (isn't it smart?) And if a little too fast in DCS, IFF antennas are not that directive and do provide a pretty quick response without a wide scan... Also, TWS scan on the RDI is different from many others radar of its generation. Detecting TWS was pretty impossible.

Hi, Are you sure you did select the right Sensor of Interest? Both cases could be explained this way.

[emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]

And that's perfectly fine! Thanks.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what the issue is, but perhaps this mod could help? https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3303537/

Not exactly. For regular monitor, we could expect 27.35%. Roughly. Or not ;-) M

Can you at least stop using bold? This looks very aggressive... This topic could have been very interesting, you sabotaged it. M

That's noise jamming ;-)

I have a very good idea of that, and this is why I'll never complain about a delayed release or an not included patch/branch. Also, people should understand that, sometimes, adding just a "simple" capability to a single aircraft is just not modifying that aircraft, it also means adding a lot of things in the underlying engine, too, so it's also usable by others.

I rarely seen someone spending so much energy explaining others that a forum is not a place to express an opinion. Not even replying would have been way more efficient in my... opinion ;-)

Apart from a wrong location, I have no idea. It's supposed to be straightforward. Where do you put the file ?

Well, it's all about finding the right balance between "stable enough" and "it's OB, so we don't care about releasing with issues breaking it". I do prefer the first option and it looks like ED too. OB is not an alpha release or a developer edition. Delaying a release is the best option when the benefit/risk ratio is low... I can live with it :)

That is absolutely mandatory for the coming F18 campaign ;-)

What did you expect? ;-)

Hi, I'm not sure how easy you want it to be, but the Mirage 2000 -> F18 converted campaign from Baltic Dragon is also very nice to play with F18, even if some training elements during the first 3 missions are not relevant to the Hornet. This is a very immersive and progressive one and worsts a look in my opinion. Just make sure you trained yourself to most aspects of the systems, as it implies A/G delivery also. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305170/

These things happen. That's just how software development works. I do appreciate the openness and prefer a slight delay to a bad experience.

An option to maintain long term sustainability is to work on a subscription model. Don't shoot me, I'm pretty sure ED is thinking of it already ;-) Many software company did switch to such a model years ago and it's now pretty common. It gives recurrent revenue to the editor and better visibility on cost for the customers. I do prefer it to micro payments and it would avoid the perpetual rush to release new things just to generate short term cash. It's not incompatible with free to play, as soon as plans are well defined. It's even possible to make it work in parallel with the existing model. M

I second most messages. My heart belongs to the Mirage 2000, but the Hornet is clearly a fantastic module I enjoy more and more. Kudos to the team!