Swift.

MSI (Inc track ranking, track contribution indications, track reliability/ambiguity, track designation through other means than radar etc) Link 16 target sharing GPS waypoints HSI Map Slew HSI Winds Data HSI CHRT/DTED/CIB cycle CV INS alignment (RF/Cable) System failures/damage modelling Advisories/Cautions relating to the CIT SINCGARS Havequick MITL weapon Coop employment Maverick TBST/SBST Proper CBU-99 fusing Interference Drag EMCON LDDI format changes during Mastermode selection HARM EOM JDAM MXU-375 nose plugs Hydra Rockets (Inc M156) Zuni Rockets (Inc Mk34) LUU-2 LUU-19 JHMCS Zulu TOD display Correct Cruise AOA performance

The Rotor Brake switch doesn't move to the Lock position. RotorBrake.trk

Muscle memory. Avoiding saturating the control throw with trim neutralisation input.

Who is saying any 'Trim Reset' needs to be sudden? It could be a smooth transition from the trimmed position to the neutral position

A suggestion/request for smoother hand over of control between pilot and CPG, is to have both set of controls combined additively to the aircraft motion. So that handing over controls is a case of the previous pilot flying slowly easing the controls to the neutral position and the next pilot flying taking more and more of the control input that is being removed. Basically at all times: Aircraft Pitch = CPG Pitch + PLT Pitch Aircraft Roll = CPG Roll + PLT Roll Aircraft Yaw = CPG Yaw + PLT Yaw Aircraft Collective = CPG Collective + PLT Collective

I see that there is an empty M299 option for loadouts which is awesome IMO, but it would also be nice to have a similar empty M261 so that we can load the launcher without any rockets inside.

Regrettably the relation between symbology and video brightness on the hornet DDIs is none adjustable. So yes you can 'turn down the brightness' but it will do nothing to improve symbology visibility against the pure green video feed.

Specifically (in my experience) the TV/CCD is wayyy to bright now and there is no way to control it. IR is fine.

Perhaps that's why there are loads of memes about vipers being given blocks in the 30s.

Recovery ranking in DCS is a bit iffy as you should expect the tankers to be 'hawking' the low state aircraft, by flying about 1 mile ahead at the 1 o'clock position at about 1200 ft iirc. But in DCS we can't get the AI to do this. So instead you might look to having the tankers in their holding altitude of 6/7000fr, but again we can't get the tankers to follow the port holding in DCS. So really it's up to you how you want to run it until ED can develop an organic solution.

FWIW, 300 KCAS is a little bit fast for a hornet tanker. The max airspeed for refuelling probe movement is only 300 KCAS after all. You might find something more like 270 KCAS a little nicer.

Evidenced by how such threads as these exist then yes, definitely. The main one in my mind, namely MSI, is such a significant feature that everyday I see people complaining about issues that having MSI would solve whether they know about it or not. So whilst hornet is good, don't fall back into thinking that what we have now is 'complete enough' because its not.

NATOPS doesn't mention anything other than the above for 23X, and nothing for 21X. Although NATOPS isn't a comprehensive description of all the systems.

Also worth noting that 'MSI' (if you could call it that) in hornet was kinda alright up until about mid 2019. And then it just broke, and has remained broken since. So whilst its possible that there might be contractual reasons, however dubious. It is made even more unbelievable when those reasons didn't limit them before.

IADS functionality or the optical guidance thing to work, so the crew *could* cue the engagement radar using optical means rather than the limits of the Straight Flush

13C that's an old one, a lot of what we have now in DCS is closer to 20X

In the DCS Encyclopaedia, the SA-6 system is described as having a maximum engagement altitude of 14000m (~46000ft), this number correlates with the value stated on the wikipedia page for the same system. In DCS gameplay, the SA-6 will not engage above 26,000ft. (Track attached). This number is suspiciously similar to the design spec of the SA-6 system where its stated the missile was required to reach at least 23,000ft. Or maybe its just a typo between 26k and 46k somewhere along the line. In any case, the SA-6 system should be capable of engaging targets up to 46,000ft as DCS's own Encyclopaedia states. SA6Altitude.trk

Yeah seen this with AB and also with a single engine nozzle flaring out when the other is still tight.

Not Planned, and thread locking is the normal response to this feature request

Last time I checked, they didnt do anything. As indicated by the lack of HDG UDF as the default heading like GBU-38 has.

The interesting thing is that the ATFLIR we have is earlier enough to not have IR marker (first 5? Pods assigned to Hornets), but apparently not early enough for NFLIR.

Yeah terminal parameters on GBU-38 only, the other weapons are just point and shoot only.

The cruise height refers to the pre search cruise phase when using Pop. With Skim set, it should skim even in the pre search phase, and then fly up at the search range before descending back into the skim once it has acquired the target. And FWIW, Skim means Skim, not 300ft kinda low-ish

And whilst we are at it, lets fix the flight profile. Skim means Skim, not just medium ish until about 5 miles and then skim.

It is for the second issue that this thread was resurrected for. The OP is probably an issue with elevation resolving at high off axis designations (no AGR). The second issue seems to be a combination of the OP issue and the thing I spoke about with the TGT snapping to the current viewport (HUD) when a TDC input is made (jitter/noise)