Swift.

Most fighters cant sustain negative G. As Holbeach mentioned, the engines are gravity fed oil. Which is fine because negative Gs hurt the pilot so its not something that will be done often.

I mean, this isn't exactly a major bug. You've already posted the solution which is to use the AG load page as you would for a normal rearm anyway.

Key point, if you don't get a friendly response, that doesn't necessarily mean its not a friendly.

190 isn't fast if you are heavy. Notice the 20-22 AOA he describes?

Are INS updates no implemented? I was doing INS position updates the other day, but maybe it's velocity updates that are still WIP?

I'm surprised you had good performance before the update whilst running from an HDD. I had to change over to an pcie drive a while back because I was getting a half setting freeze every couple of seconds on HDD.

Exactly as you've described. The jet only has a single location for the CFT bombs. So if you have a mix of 38s and 82, the jet will only know it has all 82 or all 38 on the pylon.

This has all the signs of being in game mode, please check that it is disabled and then report back.

Never flare at the boat still holds true, hence why litening isn't flown from the boat. ATFLIR and Nitehawk are the carrier tpods.

Never flare at the boat, so that 39k number is only for shorebased landings. Also technically you should always be flaring with Litening, FWIW.

33K unrestricted 34K restricted (ie no movlas, wind limits but I can't remember what they are etc) 39K if you flare And those limits are to avoid breaking things, which is something you'd want to avoid in a war aswell as in peacetime no? Surely a really great way to lose a war is to keep losing jets unnecessarily because of landing overweight, or over stressing the airframe etc.

The automatic thing is old. It was like that in the dark ages when TWS was first introduced, and I think sometime in the past year or so it was broken and only recently fixed.

Speaking of F18, here's a canadian hornet rolling out from inverted prior to a diving AUTO delivery. Notice how the ASL is offset towards the target, regardless of which way up the aircraft is.

Tbh, if the AMU can't be edited outside of the scenario creation, ie by a connecting client. Then it's pretty useless. Ideally we'd get a plain text lua that we can import, export, share and edit that contains all of the data the AmU would contain.

Hornet (post MSI hornet at least) seems really really focused around RWS. To the point where it effectively acts like TWS would in other jets. From RWS you can designate and launch on a track (be it onboard or offboard) and can quickly switch to STT through the various ACQ modes if the target under amraam attack starts going into R MEM etc. Or remaining in RWS and let the amraam guide onto the what track and track quality thereof you want.

Ok figured it out. For anyone confused, the custom args bit needs to go outside the livery bit. eg. Livery = { {"F18C_BORT_NUMBER_MTW_aus_L_01", DECAL ,"empty",true}; } custom_args = { [27] = 1.0, [1000] = 1.0, [1001] = 1.0, [1002] = 1.0, [1003] = 1.0, [1004] = 1.0, [1005] = 1.0, [1006] = 1.0, } Additionally, if you choose a "No Bort" livery, and then switch to a new livery that hasnt been updated to include these custom args. It will retain the "No Bort" behaviour.

Is anyone else having issues with this 'fix'? I've tried both methods mentioned in this thread: setting DECAL to "empty" on "f18c1_number_F", and defining custom args in the livery file. But so far the only success I've managed is to remove the extraneous numbers on the nose. I've so far been unable to remove the broken numbers on the vertical stabs, without also removing the numbers on the flaps.

In my mind the ideal solution from a user experience standpoint would be to have a series of sliders in the special options to adjust the TDC sensitivity on all formats: HUD ATTK AZEL SA HSI TPOD GRID Because although the new speed does make it easier to do things like bump ranging on the ATTK format, its going to be absolute hell to try and enter MGRS with it, at least unless you have a force transducer for your slew control. It seems that instead of trying to cater for all controllers and ending up with a one size fits none solution, ED should just let the player decide what they want, especially when it comes to issues like this that are wholly dependent on hardware being used.

Indeed, the problem is that IRL they have a force transducer for selling which makes it a lot easier to get a much smaller proportion of input. Most people in dcs are using a gamepad style thumbstick or a hat switch, and can't get that same level of precision.

Yeah averaged would work if both players had FFB and the non flying pilots was being driven by the flying pilots. The averaging in that case would work more as a counter desync measure.

Thats an interesting observation. It doesnt necessarily address the root cause, but FYI most people set up curves in the trackIR software itself (I use opentrack personally, but its the same idea)

Are you setting your response curves in trackIR or in DCS?

I don't think average would work at all. At least not without losing 50% of your control authority.

How would this 'instructor mode work'? Any kind of digital handover of controls will inevitably result in sharp jerks in the flight path, which if you are in a fine motor situation will result in a crash. If you intent is to 'save the aircraft' then being able to nudge the controls is far far far superior to having to jerk the controls via the current means.

Any confusion can be resolved in the way its resolved IRL. Using your voice. Thats why positive control handover exist: 'I have control', 'You have a control'.