Swift.

Some of the BITs work, they startup BIT behaviour is all goofed though. So for now all you can do is just manually run them and have fun.

44,000 lbs is wayyyy over the max landing weight. And the performance charts show stopping distances as near enough to a mile when at max weight (39,000lbs). I have done some stopping tests in the past and found DCS to stop within about 200ft of the real numbers. And FYI you are right, a hornet at 44,000lbs wouldnt take a mile to stop. It would probably take a fair amount more

That's the point, it's every altitude and weight. You set thrust to fly 4.2/5.6 and that is the optimal drag/thrust ratio

Yes and no. 4.2/5.6 were also provided by an SME, ED just like hard numbers better than hearsay. There are no assumptions provided in the book about these numbers other than 4.2AOA up to 0.85 Mach. The performance charts supplement makes no mention of AOA other than 'dash AOA <2.5' 'cruise AOA >2.5' It's important to be aware that these numbers don't have to have assumptions or specific circumstances where they apply. AFAIK AOA is the important value when determining cruise performance, look to something like tomcat for example, and that the FPAS values are just driving you towards a given AOA. I've had it described to me as such: You will fly the jet to the AOA approximations provided, because if you fly to what the computer tells you and you run short of fuel then it's still your fault. Computer is just to back you up.

What makes you think ED are modelling a later version litening? Remember that every pod in the game has a resolution vastly above that of what it should, so that's no evidence. I have no intent on trying to convince you that ED are modelling a Spanish pod from 1999. So either believe it, or don't. I'm ready to move on from the rubbish that Spanish litening is. Give me ATFLIR already.

When was the last time your Litening generated an AA track? Remember that the Litening is from a spanish document, circa 1999 afaik.

its not about resolution or zoom, its about software interface. The Litening software we have is from a time before MSI was a thing.

4.2 AOA but not faster than 0.85 IMN. Other than that, its just those AOAs straight. The AOAs are what FPAS is flying you towards to achieve max range or endurance.

Alternatively, you can estimate best range or endurance by using AOA: 4.2 = Best Range 5.6 = Best Endurance Of course, this doesn't work in DCS.

Thats how it works in the real thing. There is still debate about which pages exactly it should change to.

If you write to thrust master support they will be able to help, either a replacement or a new switch.

Of course this being a hornet subforum, the only lights we have are the ones that tell you if you are too close or far, but they don't work in DCS. Unfortunately there are no alignment aides for probe pilots.

I wonder if that's related to this bug I reported a while ago. Jumping from T UP to 'H' UP or something.

It's been doing this since they first removed the CPL option line of that menu.

He is talking about a different bug, one I reported also. When you designate a point with the helmet and then look through the HUD and slew the TDC even slightly, the TGT will jump to within the HUDS FOV

The thing to remember is that harrier in dcs is still just a simulation. Without saying anything about the reputation of the dev, any simulation makes a poor reference source.

Good spot, I've correlated with other videos and can confirm. As a side note, would you look at that TACT pushbutton. wink wink ED

From the recent ATFLIR videos, it looks like the ATFLIR is showing its coordinates with a degree and minute symbol. However from various videos online, we can see that normally the coordinates are shown with : instead of degrees and no ' at the end. eg. N 12:34.56

Verify that the source video isn't a litening. I'll have a look when I'm home to see what atflir looks like.

Hornets INS doesn't appreciably drift, this isn't F14. I'm also curious what people imagine a GPS denied environment is. I always thought GPS jamming was more focused than denying an entire airspace. So either the enemy know exactly where you are, in which case you have bigger problems than a miniscule amount of INS drift. Or a vast amount of the constellation is down, in which case you have bigger problems than a miniscule amount of INS drift.

Indeed thanks, I've had another review and discussion with friends. It would seem I misunderstood the AC Data selection. I initially thought it was the option to select which bank angle between 30-60 TAC BLIM would stick to. But now I realise its instead the option to select which BLIM its following, TAC or NAV. With the tac limits being driven by airspeed. Interesting note, the maximum roll rates are also written in the same document.

Offset in hornet will create an OAP associated with the given WP. So if I start with WP 5 placed on the LSV beacon, then entering an offset of 5 miles north will create an OAP 5 miles north of the LSV beacon. To access steering to this point you press the WYPT pushtile on the UFC once to steer to the original point, then once again to cycle it to OAP which will provide steering to the offset created. Its not like A-10 where you can create a waypoint proper from the offset data.

The way I interpreted it, Nav is when you are in Nav MM. Tac is for AG or AA MM.

Straight off the bat, the Nav BLIM is fixed at 30 degrees (reference the flight manual), in the video we see the bank reaching as much as 45 degrees in Nav. As for the rate, I'm sure an SME could help.

Offset Aimpoints perhaps work a little differently than you might be imagining.