Shimmergloom667

Create a single player track file that just showcases the issue and nothing else, so best set up a few things in an empty mission and show the issue only.

Different maps of different age and quality made by different creators. To be expected.

How can you get lost in either?

Just had to say it to reply to those weirdos who find the Lawn Dart visually appealing All I can see:

The Hornet is not only the most gorgeous plane of all, it is also very well developed, it's systems are logical and easy to use and it's insanely capable in everything you need to do. In DCS it actually comes close to feeling like a one man air force. While I played tons of Falcon 4 and BMS back in the day, I am *so glad* to got rid of the F-16 and it's ridiculously illogical and convoluted avionics. Everything is complicated in that thing, the tiny MFDs with their bad layouts and strange logical paths are just so off-putting once you had the chance to use the Hornet's. And don't get me started on it's weird use of SPI & CZ necessities. I do like the A-10 because of the rule of cool, and while it's systems are a bit weird as well at leasts it's concept of SPI generation is way ahead of the Viper. I personally also don't find that non-FBW planes have anything in offer in terms of "soul", that is just a non-issue to me. The need to constantly trim and watch out for peculiarities is not engaging to me, it is just tedious. We arrived at a modern age and I want to use modern tools. The whole "flying" part of things is "meh" to me, doesn't differ from a Cessna 172 a lot anyway. Systems management is what makes me interested in flight sims (which is why I also enjoy airliner sims a lot - programming an FMS is one of my favorite things to do), and the Hornet's systems are second to none in DCS, only the Mud Hen comes close (you can feel the manufacturer's genes here).

It still doesnt lock a thing. It designates the L&S. If, for some reason, a friendly plane is the highest-ranking trackfile it will correctly become the L&S.

Sure thing, I just wanted to ask for a clarification as to what has been renamed to what. All good.

No, you don't need a "minimum number of players", and yes the AI flight members will share DL with you. It will be similar in the Apache.

Does anyone know what this means, exactly? "Due to complications stemming from our other businesses, we had to adjust datalink terms. In this case, Secure Modem Datalink (SMDL). This is all I will say on the matter. " I totally understand the sensitivity of the systems in question and possible intervention by government customers, but: is the name changed, or what? Functionality-wise I am certain everything will be fine for us in the scope of DCS, looking forward to it!

What keeps you from focusing on one plane even with the full set of icons on the bottom? That kinda makes no sense...

You don't have to give a mobile number or anything to google to use this form of 2FA. You don't have to use the Google Authenticator, don't have to be online, don't have to yield any information.

Absolutely. Well, learning through pain when the first important online account is stolen.

Wait, what - people are *complaining* about 2FA in 2023? The mind is boggled.

I would hope so! There must be some sort of boresighting mechanism in the other planes as well, and I would welcome that. Feels wrong to just sling them in the Hornet, I want the full monty and have to boresight as well.

I don't. I have bought this, but the LoFi turns me off so much that I never touched it again.

Until we get realistic basket / boom physics it is and will stay just super easy.

I mean, you could take a look for HMD in the supplied manual...

No need to record something - simply load up a quick flight, replicate the issue, finish your flight and then choose the "Save track replay" option. Upload said track here afterwards for analysis.

It does not need that for efficient proportional navigation.

This Thread is not about the 9M, but yeah - obviously that has it's limitations with regards to FOV etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

Same, and the Viper feels like everything else to me, tbqh.

Tbh it's not a Hornet issue, but a map issue - so the bug is in the map maker's hands.

Take a look at Forum rule 1.16 Unless you provide any documentation on how PP should work instead of how it is implemented now, and PM that to the relevant people (Wags, Bignewy, 9Line) the entire "discussion" is moot. That said: any sort of RL conflict loadout of legacy Hornets with JDAMs that I have seen amounts to one or two carried. There is not a lot of confusion with that in conjunction with the various PPs, also Pilots carry "cheat sheets" all the time, in form of mission details and any other kind of information on kneeboards etc. What you see as "possible source of errors" may very well still be absolutely fine for the government contractor.

Of course that is a point - how will you be able to judge what is a "reasonable amount of time" when you have nothing to compare it to? And you can't even say for sure it slowed down due to the Viper since you know exactly nothing about their inner workings. It may as well have sped up various things during development since these modules profit from similar systemolgy. Since they didn't give any sort of timeframe: it is absolutely fine as it is.