Shimmergloom667

That is due to not all DCS maps having map image files for all scales included. That is, ultimately, something for the map creators to do and not an Apache bug.

It's for Ugra to fix, and as Bunny Clark said: probably the map itself took precedence, since we got it expanded quite a bit now

qed

And nothing of that would be part of a ~2005 Hornet, which is modeled in DCS. Oh wait, it's you, so it would be a fruitless discussion anyway.

Basically every TGP implementation except the LANTIRN on the F-14 is overperforming as compared to RL. So I think every bit of degradation, every bit of bloom, athmospheric impediment etc. is a good thing.

But why? Are you in a hurry? It's not like it's yesterday's news (speaking about sims) after 6 years.

Carrier ops, better ergonomics, more varied loadout and capabilities, carrier ops, better user interface, more capable sensorics with better usability, carrier ops - everything the F-18 has in the cockpit feels like someone at MDD looked at the F-16 and made a better version of it. (And the Hornet just looks SO MUCH better)

I know people who refuel flying with keyboard. I used a crappy X56 and had no issues. Good hardware sure doesn't hurt, but it is NOT needed for AAR.

Abandoning would mean "stopping on working on it for good", which clearly is not the case.

Man, you guys are pessimists. Yes, it would be great if stuff got finished faster, especially since the Hornet is at a very high level of completion already and we are using it for so long - but now it's the Viper's turn, and it sorely needs it. As we saw, a lot of Hornet developments speeded up Viper development, and later on we will profit off that in the Hornet as well because stuff will arrive faster. Judging the Hornet to be "abandoned" is just absurd. A bit on the backburner? Yeah, obviously. That will change in good time. Just my 0.02$, I am not in a hurry.

Build your own missions, leave out AA threats, done.

Didn't you "abhor post 1995 planes" or something along these lines? Why do you care what it would or would not break.

Swiftwin is right, it's pretty obvious this Subs guy neither knows what he is talking about, nor is he willing to learn. Nothing can be gained by engaging in discussion.

Right!

ILS is no prerequisite for bad weather or IFR landings. ILS and ILCS are two superficially similar, but ultimately also very different systems. And no USN or USMC Charlie Hornet, which is what is modelled in our game, carried ILS equipment. None. Thusly you are still wrong.

That is wrong. You are wrong.

Some Hornets have. USN and USMC dont. Which is what is modeled in the game. Which is why OUR Hornet doesnt. The end.

You really have to upload the track for that or ED wont be able to help here

I think so too. The resolution of the sensor certainly is a degree or two off, which adds to a lot of uncertainty over distance.

It may very well be restricted by the mission, not your settings (which look alright)

So, I was wondering: since MGRS / UTM is the gift that keeps on giving - anyone knows if the RL Jeff can handle MGRS / UTM coordinate entry, and if so, has there been any word on that by the Devs?

That's not exactly explained in two sentences. You should head out and find some DCS skinning tutorials, acquaint yourself with Gimp or Photoshop and how to work DDS files etc.

Not possible, those are only on the static F-18. Same with pilot unless ejecting.

Very carefully

It's still a thing because no one so far managed to give hard black-on-white evidence to @BIGNEWY or @NineLine that TOO should work differently. Mind you: *I* certainly agree that the current implementation is wrong, but ED thinks otherwise, and unless someone comes up with evidence it will be marked "correct as is" and dismissed. So, in case you have evidence on how it should work correctly: share a track file and documentation with the team. Or maybe @Santi871 can talk to the team internally again, since he confirmed as well that the current implementation is wrong.