Coyle

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.

Same issue. Mission was created after the patch, and I tried changing the in-cockpit fuse settings (not that those should have any effect, like not being able to change the codes in the cockpit.) My GBU-38s also would not go off in a different mission. Track: Fuses no worky.trk

In most every day aircraft, your F-14s, 15s, even the 16s, the radar works in a vacuum. You tell it where to look, and if you find contacts you can interact with them, otherwise it has no idea whats going on. Even aided with data-link, those contacts are simply plastered over the screen, the radar still doesn't know they are there - thus you must still tell the radar where to look. Not so in our F/A-18. All information fed by various sensors, the data-link, HARM, CIT, ASPJ, RWR, ATFLIR and of course the radar is first fed into the computer where they are all extrapolated into usable, often intractable track files where all these sensors can reference back at, already knowing the shared information they contain. My radar can be looking to the right, contributing additional information to contacts it's currently looking at, but it will know there's contacts to the left, and will easily turn to look at them with a press of a button if commanded to because the radar is not working in a vacuum like previously stated. This is why TWS is a primary deployment method in our jet vs say, the F-15 and even the F-16. The jet often already knows where everything already is so in reality our tracks are that much stronger aided by all sensors. In contrast to this you might hear an F-16 pilot say TWS is 'track while scam' and would never use it. But this is DCS, and TWS has become a DCSism and often works too well for these other aircraft. Sensor fusion, the F/A-18 did it first, the F-35 does it better.

And then you learn that the Navy doesn't fly around with master arm on even upon entering the AO, only when you're about to deploy your weapons - all adding to those precious seconds. Nobody said being a fighter pilot was easy The system works fine as intended, what's not working is our lack of proper MSI, where every track on the MC level is able to be designated. No fiddling with radar or other sensors, etc. This would mostly solve your issue.

I'm fairly certain that it's a misconception that the KC-135 refuels faster with the boom on fighters. The hornet and viper should both refuel roughly the same amount despite their different refuelling methods. The KC-135s boom is capable of refuelling faster, yes, but on larger aircraft that can accept that larger flow of intake. I would ask that you double check the fighters fuel intake rates, and not a blanket fuel rate that the tanker itself can theoretically apply. Edit: If anything, the hornet and viper refuels too fast in DCS. Will send info.

@NineLine No track, but this 100% happened to me on the super carrier. Got launched with the salute animation stuck in place with my controls locked out, it's not just a Forrestal issue.

You turned off your NWS prior to rolling. Don't do that.

This seems to be an easily reproducible crash. Only tested in the F/A-18C, might affect the F-16 too. Setting the new TNDL STN numbers to 1xxxxx or (Ie, the first digit of five to one or higher) will cause the game to crash instantly with air or ground hot starts when you take control of that jet. dcs.log-20231020-202404.zip

Simple logic bug here, no track provided. If you scan center away from the middle in RWS while not using 140 azimuth, going into VS will re-center the scan. If you use TWS BIAS or if AUTO was being used causing the scan to not be centered, going into VS will not recenter the scan, and as there seems to be no method of scan centering while in VS, you must exit VS, go into RWS, then back into VS to get your scan back into center point.

Couldn't view your track, but those lights seem very, very dim. Double check your AoA brightness knob. It's in the bottom most row of the UFC/HUD stuff, just above the AMPCD. User preference of course, but: I take mine down to half brightness at night, and only adjust lower if needed to not blow out while using NVGs. Otherwise full brightness during most day operations.

Should always be there by default unless you're playing around with the HMD formats Reject functions, or potentially do a bad alignment? Hard to know with out a screenshot. See attached if you messed with any of these settings.

I'd avoid using the LITENING, as our ATFLIR should be the better modelled pod in just about every metric and avionics integration since it has come out that we have a Spanish LITENING pod that pre-dates MSI. The one thing we lose out on is not having an IR laser pointer, due to ED modelling a pre-preduction ATFLIR that has neither the NAVFLIR (early pods should) or the IR marker. You have a couple of options with the ATFLIR. You can SCS long towards the FLIR page to go straight from INR to AUTO (the moving target track) with out having to step INR>SCENE>AUTO, or you can go from SCENE to AUTO more smoothly than the LITENING because you can still slew in SCENE mode, requiring just one command of SCS towards the FLIR page. If you decide to use the SCS long HOTAS shortcut you can move your LOS along with the target while it cues to track it, or you could move to AUTO ahead of the target and let it run into the cue, where the pod will then pick it up and track it.

Bump. I can appreciate the work ED has put in on the carrier comms side of things, but there has to be some way for us to connect to the carrier with out going through the AI process when we only wish to fly with other humans making all the calls in a simulated multiplayer environment. A simple radio command that'll skip all AI comms, toss us up on the LSO platform list, tune the lights as appropriate, and automatically attempt to establish ACLS would go such a long way until some of these things can be modelled a little better via super carrier features. Maybe one that could even be bound like the "hornet ball" key bind we have.