deadpool

Track file is massive. Doesn't make sense to upload it as it's almost at the end of the mission. Generally speaking: Suddenly the HARM turns itself off, got a WPN off page .. and the missile is on according to the SMS page. Power cycled the SMS page and it worked again: Makes no sense and is broken.

Roger. Thanks for the feedback.

Another mission feedback from a technical point of view. We try to fly realistic missions. Today I was part of a package with CAP/SEAD mission. SAMs weren't always active, but turned on and off during the mission. Parts of the SAMs were at prebriefed positions, parts not. One consistent thing was, that you had problems nagging you. I don't think there is nothing beside PvP that might actually work as intended half decently. Here is my writeup: Overall issues: - Readability MFDs, especially altitudes of contacts and TWS notations. - Cluttering of the HSD page with overlapping SAM circles that ultimately lost to a degredation of SA, especially where which waypoints were located. - Inability to hook waypoints on the HSD page with the cursor, leading to manual flipping through to find the right waypoint for a potential SAM site. - SAM sites or AI air contacts locking someone still lead to RWR warnings everywhere on the map. This causes complacency in pilots ignoring those calls as they are desensitised. (this has been an issue for A LONG time) - Betty telling you "CHAFF FLARE" when you're not really dropping flares as you have deactivated them. Specific issues: - HARM in F-16 did not show 11/SD even though RWR did see it and show it. Not even after a full scan cycle with the aircraft pointing at the site (which was launching missiles). - HARMs in the F-16 fly towards the waypoint they were meant to in PB mode, but then make a 90° turn to head for a totally different SAM site. - HARM turned itself off in flight. Was active on the SMS page, but WPN page showed that it was off. - CAP flight was guiding an AMRAAM and flicked into DGFT mode, losing lock and trashing the missile. This defect is reported from December 2019 and was "as intended" until this year. (oh and the second SA-2 was only briefly on .. so it got detracted from the actual site and then couldn't hit the other one as it overflew it harmlessly)

Just for confirmation. That will stay the say the same even with us getting the AN/PRC-210 that the hornet's use?

Screenshot while it's here

There is so much wrongness here in the last few posts. I can't even. Please continue.

I don't have the limits for release in front of me. But for release or jettison events there is a sequencer that will take care that stuff doesn't bump into each other. A lot of care and a lot of trials are flown to prevent these things from happening! So if it's an acceptable loadout dropped in the limits for release-parameters, then it should not collide. That said: The F-16 is EA, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't taken into account, yet. But I'm still happy about the bugreport, as it serves as a reminder of what still needs to be fixed. Just don't expect a quick fix soon.

That selector knob should be part of a pre-flight checklist anyways I also had some nice experiences with just CT at 35+' in lower regime AB. Surprisingly good economy for a constant supersonic cruise. Given a pretty deterministic ascension profile, there is one poor farmer who's land now looks like this:

Also an interesting fact and maybe something to "unite" the Hornet and Viper enthusiasts in mind even more: They were born out of the same program. The Hornet has it's beginnings in the YF-17 for that very same program that the YF-16 competed in. And both planes were taken to more diverse directions afterwards! While most Viper documents are so readily available, the -34-1-1 isn't. Would be cool to know for sure, though. Not only ECM sadly, but also RCS. I have no idea how it is in 2.7 but modelling RCS based on a fixed value per plane (that is grossly squashed into unrealistic values) and then *maybe* adding a modifier for aspect to it is nowhere near what should be done in the 2000s. Option 1: Take the plane, use simple radar equations (the russians should know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev) to get RCS values automated for every 10° in AZ and EL. Store that in a matrix and have that loaded together with the airframe (once per airframe-type on the server). This gives you a quick-lookup option for a proper RCS from any angle. Option 2: Take the plane, use simple radar equations (the russians should know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev) to get RCS values automated for every 10° in AZ and EL. Do this on the fly during loadout changes! Store that in a matrix and have that loaded together with the airframe (once per airframe(-loadout combo) on the server). This gives you a quick-lookup option for a proper RCS from any angle including stuff like fueltanks added etc. This would be a fantastic work to give out to a masters student in physics / computational sciences that wants to graduate in a company over topics like physics, rendering, radar and stuff while having a meaningful impact. ---- And to contribute some facts to the debate: The hornet has a bigger RCS, that will also play a factor in when someone is picked up. But this is not a peeing contest on paper If you look at previous conflicts with airforces that didn't have the training standard of the USA (or comparable nations), you will see that BVR timelines and tactics were not that great and their pilots paid for that.

Not plausible for the year our Hornet was build and to when it was updated. The wiring for the adapter wasn't there. I layed it out in the defect thread.

Not sure about G loadings with empty tank on centerline. I'd love to be educated on this! (empty tanks on wing I know)

are you flying in VR? In VR you might be experiencing a stronger adverse effect due to the so called moiré effect. This is reported already.

I have no idea with what loadout you are flying or what speeds you do. The F-16 has very very long legs and that's with just 1 centerline tank and/or 2 wingtanks. No kicking ass without tanker gas, but still .. definitely not a bad endurance! Maybe OP can upload a Tacview file of how is flying?

/bump One can see in my videos that it's not JHMCS alone, but lagging / losing lock in HUD as well. This happens just in the Viper, not in the Hornet. This is also not connected to line of sight change as can also clearly be seen in the videos.

This video is also a good example of how well the lock is established in a dogfight. Since this bug report got squashed as "correct as is": I have to assume that the entire greek video must be fake! /sarcasm

I filed a bugreport about station 4 though. But I look forward to the G limitations for carrier ops being taken into consideration for the damage model.

More: When ^^ According to this book: https://books.google.de/books?id=RjZTqYTEADYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false American RWR are suggested to be programmed also for mission profiles. It sounded in the book as if high altitude missions would classify threats that can't reach that high differently then when flying a mission with lower level altitude parts. I am not sure if modern RWRs aren't connected to altimeters etc. to make those decisions more or less fluidly, but the book at leasts suggests a pre-programming of such a kind before the mission starts. Don't forget the folks on the forums here that want "balance" and such.

I answered it here: But I understand that you do not necessarily want a realistic FA18C then. Noted. I don't need to argue with you then, because we have different ideas about what this games goals are. Most important though is what ED's goals are. As I said, my suspicious are that they wante it as realistic as can be. If I am mistaken, then I'll accept that and not bother with any further reports on realism. But I am quite sure that my perspective is more in line with ED's than yours. No offense.

No it is not. The Hornet ingame is - according to the post from ED I quoted - in a state from ca. 2005. Now what can that mean? 165407 was build in 1998 (I think). So assuming it had every upgrade that was available in 1998 and that earlier lot numbers got via upgrade kits it had from the get-go that still leaves the time period of 1998 to 2005 in which it would have been continously upgraded. With which kits, we don't know, but I assumed that we got really really lucky and that it got all of the big and important kits. Now even if that was the case, there is no chance - except for wrong documentation to congress, failure for me to understand the documents, or violations of causality in this universe that a financial requested enhancement for the FA18C fleet that was thought up and requested in 2007 ended up happening before congress was asked for money for it in 2005. (As said by me earlier, even 2007 itself as a year seems unrealistically short duration between requesting (and not necessarily getting) the money, and then acting upon that with development, test and rollout to the fleet). While I really have no problem explaining it more, it starts to reach a point where I would expect everyone who takes flying the virtual FA18C seriously and realistically would understand it. @BIGNEWY might want to close the thread I assume.

I understand that, but it's not a factor. Even the 165407 will have been upgraded further with upgrade kits, OSIPs, etc. (as you can read from the financial reports). This is important alone as to keep the airframe structure flying safely until the FA-18C is replaced fully from US DoD inventory. The 165407 was build in 1998, right? So it wouldn't have had that capability from the get-go either. So my reported issue stands valid for all I know.

It's not up to me to decide whether this will be taken out of the game or not. I know that historical accuracy has been an important topic especially for the F-16CM modelled in DCS. I simply gave realistic input on the situation in the hope of making the overall game a bit more realistic. --- that aside: I understand that the Hornet takes a lot of liberties already in terms of availability of certain modules / upgrade kits that were not available in big numbers for the Lot XX F18C in 2005. The one we have in our game is one of the few airframes (most likely United States Navy, as the Marines upgrades always lagged behind a bit) that received almost all of the bigger upgrade kits (which seems to be a very lucky coincidence for those that fly the FA18C in DCS). (You can look through the financial budgets here for more details). I am not also not here to question the decision to add foreign operated pods (which as I understood it was taken purely for legal matters as for documentation, etc.). That is absolutely understandably answered by NineLine in the post about the pod.

duplicate report of by the looks of it

What I understand is: - We have the US Marine Corps / United States Navy Hornet - We have a spanish TPod for it.

Doesn't matter. What matters is where the umbilical is for the pod to even go. And that's not the Station 4 for 2005/2007 Hornets. Fun story. The FA18C wasn't able to take advantage of digital connections for the AIM-9X on the wingtips until it received an upgrade to digitalize the wingtips. Before that it would only run in fallback analog modes. Again, the weapon didn't change, it was the pylon / connector that was at fault. Same for the Litening pod connector here.

Here is how far we are in 2020 with AI image enhancement: But this is not something you'll find in the pod, mind you. Ultimately image enhancement is trying to infer information from where it doesn't exist raw. Either because you know the model very well, or because you don't mind conjecture in the data.