Coyle

AUTO will prioritize keeping the L&S in radar coverage at all times, but will in fact actively work to keep as many track files in the radar as possible with the help of MSI tracks. So 'keeping it centred' is a bit of a mischaracterization. Attached image has the L&S on the far left while AUTO is engaged, keeping as many things in the box as it can (basically all but one)

I remember the day the ACLS video dropped. I was so excited to finally hook up to it and properly call in needles... And yet before I even pressed play on the video, I knew it would be tied into the blasted AI comms. Of course, to the surprise of no one it was, and I sought out a solution to bypass it. I remember later after it released that not even twenty minutes of messing around with it, I could bypass it via Viacom and the command "Platform", only needing to be within the conditions to do so at the back of the carrier where one would call for it and it worked. No obnoxiously tedious AI call ins for our large multiplayer squadron necessary once I spread the word. I even went so far as to ask for direct support from the Viacom devs to help streamline this method a bit but since they didn't seem to understand the issue, it went nowhere. Still, I would wind up using this little trick for a time. It had been so frustrating seeing my and many others request to get this sorted for the multiplayer crowd ignored, with our lovely community managers demanding an essay on why they should take the time to support such a change. Things never change here at ED I suppose.

Not directly related, but since you're mentioning some logic for hot/air starts... Would you consider the gun auto selecting the M50/PGU program based on what's loaded from the ME for hot/air starts? Just a minor game play improvement.

Will you be revisiting the RCS of other modules, based on aspect and loaded weapons, etc? As it stands our F/A-18 and F-15 in-game have the same RCS. It should instead be just a peg larger or smaller than the viper depending on where you look, though absolutely nowhere near in the same category of an eagle which is what I'm guessing is out of place.

Good feedback for a feature that was developed that nobody has asked for? Yet you continue to ignore requests made by the community for years, from very basic keybinding requests for the waveoff/cut lights (You know, the very wave off lights that exist for a reason to not shoot a flare at a plane) to ways to allow humans to control some of the features like ACLS for a more immersive experience in a MP setting, or methods to completely ignore the ATC in SP setting but still have ACLS access. When ACLS first came out I figured out you could use VoiceAttack to skip the ATC almost entirely by only needing to call "platform" to get ACLS functionality, which I could quickly slip in-between human manned stations in MP settings. But I shouldn't need to devise hacks like these or have to explain/rely on other people to adopt these methods to make it work. What are you guys doing? Do a bit of work for features we've been asking for. For years. And not ... whatever this is.

It was always in the road map, though it's more recently been moved to after early access rather than being a before release item.

You of all people should know we haven't a shred of MSI implemented in our hornet, we just have donor tracks and radar tracks with no MSI inbetween. While what you say is accurate (no MSI processing in A/G) I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. There's nothing saying we can't have donor tracks (but not being processed into a MSI trackfile) while in A/G, IE displayed over the SA page. If the A/G radar is building A/A radar tracks while in MAP mode, that's another thing entirely and is the bug. But let's make sure we know what's the difference here between raw hits, trackfiles (radar in this case) and finally MSI (not implemented at all)

Coyle - Wanted to recreate an IRL picture a couple years back after new clouds released

About a year or 2 ago, ED introduced an update. I don't recall the specifics of it, but frames in the cockpit absolutely tanked and it was a result of the SA page refreshing at the full 60Hz or whatever the displays are meant to behave as. Their solution to fix the frame issues was to artificially limit the SA and AZ/EL pages refresh abilities. Although I immediately noticed the change back then, it is perhaps more noticeable now with the speed changes of the TDC cursor. It's quite simple, move the cursor around on the radar page and note how fluid the cursor is, then move it across the SA page and AZ/EL pages and note how much jittery the cursor (and also the contacts moving across) are on these pages vs the radar page. Please give us a special option to restore the pages as they are meant to be, or better yet fix what causes the frame loss with out this annoying band aid fix.

Not nitpicky, IMO. It's comically annoying constantly seeing A-10/F-16 drivers referencing phraseology that doesn't apply to the hornet, I always found it as a lack of respect towards a different airframe. There's no SOI, TMS, DTC etc. for the hornet. And sure, I'm very well aware a lot of it can be boiled down to semantics since "SOI" and "TDC priority" can be practically used interchangeably, but if you're not going to bother trying to learning different things, what else are you going to overlook and not learn about/train towards. If I used hornet terms in those other forums I'd rightly never hear the end of it, shouldn't be any different here.

ICLS is bullseye. Not needles. I'm serious. It's a terrible DCSism picked up from people flying exclusively ICLS for 5 years before ED ever implemented ACLS, exacerbated by the fact the navy decided to mismatch the names 'needles' (a tiny circle) with bullseye (the lines). Only ACLS is called needles. If for whatever reason you don't fly with ACLS, you do not respond a 'needle' position, you'd say negative needles. The voice lines were/are incorrect for this matter.

You'll want to read up on CASE I, and CASE III procedures. CASE II is mix of both (starts CASE III, then transitions to CASE I. If you're really set on doing 'ICLS approaches' first, then read up on CASE III first. Though it may be best to work towards and refine doing CASE I landings first, at land or at the boat. Edit: Have a read through this guide, as it'll tell you pretty much everything you need to know https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hShIyjq1Cf8MQSAcwk5k1IhSMdvqpUok/view which can be found with discussion in this thread.

Couple of reasons that come to mind why it's still correct as is. While it was never going to actually change the physical code on the bomb, it might have been a legacy option to add codes that existed pre AMU and served as a visual reminder of what each bomb was set to (each could have had different codes) in lieu of checking knee boards that was left in place, but regardless of that and more importantly even after being equipped with one it will still remind/warn the pilot if there is a mismatch in PRF codes on their pods to the current bomb that is selected, if for example the pilot had to switch to buddy lase something else and would then return to bomb themselves.

It's like no one read my/the first reply to the OP lol. The change did two things, it: 1: Removed speed and altitude from the cursor itself, it's now attached to tracks and: 2: You can L&S/DT2 and STT via the TDC, asuming things are inside your radars settings. Yes, this is not practical currently because we're missing MSI, where you can set L&S regardless of if the radar sees it or not, we are desperately missing MSI, the core system of how our hornet's avionics are meant to be operated with.

The change added the ability to set L&S/DT2 & STT from the SA page using the TDC. This will be a more useful function when we're able to set L&S and such with out radar contribution via the future MSI feature.