Cytarabine

There clearly is code for grading landings as AI landings get graded and I think with the supercarrier module we are going to get landing grades. While Bankler’s is not the formal grading system it is great for getting your landings up to snuff (my highest is a 70 after a lot of practice) and until I started that I had no idea how bad my landings were! The real grading is (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_signal_officer?wprov=sfti1) 5 - OK underline (perfect pass under unfavorable circumstances) 4 - OK (pass with only minor deviations) 3 - Fair (pass with one or more safe deviations or corrections) 2.5 - Bolter (safe pass without stopping) 2 - No grade (pass with safe but gross deviations or corrections or failure to respond to LSO calls) 1 - Technique waveoff (counts to your landing score) 0 - Cut pass (unsafe pass with unacceptable deviations) Foul deck waveoff - no points but doesn’t count against you as it is the decks issue

True though the F-15 has its design origins in the 1960’s as a response to the supposed wonderweapon that was the Mig-25 and the original specification requested for the Mirage 2000 for the AdA was a Mach 3 interceptor in the early 70’s as a couple of examples. Now it is not to say that speed is never important - the Mig-31 makes good use of speed to allow itself to protect a large volume of airspace, however like all things it comes with sacrifices.

The Super Hornet which replaces it (and the F-35C) is no faster. Put simply the Hornet is not designed for high Mach. It’s engines are plenty powerful enough (it has a higher thrust to weight than the Tomcat, the Tomcat is one big mutha) but it’s inlets are of a more simple design which limits its top end performance and has comparatively high drag. The JF-17 should be slower overall as well (but might depend where in the flight envelope). Simple fact is that most aerial engagements are not at supersonic speeds and planes designed to go fast at low level make other compromises (or employ relatively expensive things such as variable geometry wings). While going very fast has a role, for the most part the compromises are not worth it (as evidenced by the fact the F-16 and F-18 are being replaced by a slower airframe which lends additional capabilities).

Once again you are at an oblique aspect where NCTR cannot look down the intakes to the compressors and thus cannot get an ID.

Okay so looking at his contrail you definitely do not have a nose hot aspect from him, thus you cannot look down his intakes to get an NCTR recognition and thus cannot identify him as foe. To classify a bogey as hostile you need to have 2 of; - Lack of Mode 4 response (thus a hostile Mode 4 response) - NCTR identification classifies as a hostile aircraft - Other donor on the datalink classifies as hostile or - PLID as hostile (though then it is all on you) So to ID in an environment where you lack donors you need to; - Place target under cursor in radar - Sensor select depress --> IFF interrogate --> if no response you have 1 out of 2 - Get nose hot aspect from bandit within 24nm --> NCTR --> if hostile airframe --> hostile Until then it is unknown. In future when there is air-to-air with the targeting pod it might be more useful as you could visually identify the aircraft type in situations where NCTR does not work (such as this) and then classify them as hostile yourself using the PLID button on the SA page.

You can change the range by going to the top or the bottom (but unlike the F-16 it doesn’t move the cursor straight back to the centre.) You have to either use the cursor to select azimuth or the button next to the MFD unfortunately.

This is entirely moot given you have made a purchase, and while it is heretical on the Viper forum I would go Hornet first; - weapons variety - the Hornet will always have more variety of weapons owing to the fact it has to perform all of the fighter/strike roles for the carrier air group, while the Viper in USAF/ANG service is in cooperation with other specialised airframes (so no SLAM-ER, Harpoon, sea mines, Walleye for the Viper) - carrier ops - with the supercarrier coming carrier ops look set to be more detailed than land based ops currently - more complete - the Hornet feels more down the road to completion (both still have huge gaps though) - discounts are a long time off for the Viper So in conclusion - buy both, get Hornet first.

It is not so muchb the missle alone but also the launcher, which would be required if the Viper was to carry more. The F-16 was designed as a lightweight fighter, and in original design had no BVR capacity, this was added later (some air defence and foreign variants do carry the AIM-7). When it was designed the USAF already had a very effective (arguably worlds best) air superiority platform in the Eagle, the Viper was the cheaper complement to the Viper. The F-15C is a bigger aircraft designed to fulfill the air superiority role only (not a pound for air to ground), the F-21 is an export model that may never be and the F-18 operates in a very different envirnoment than the Viper (carrier, where it could conceivably be the only air superiority asset in theatre). It's not necessarily useless, but it doesn't support the concept of the F-16. If your fighter depends on being fast and agile, making it slow and draggy is not going to be a winning idea.

High textures, no MSAA, no global illumination, 16X AF, Have 1.4 x PD by Oculus Tray Tool... I wonder if that is it?? Will test (Nope it wasn't that)

Drag is often more the issue than weight. Drag makes you bleed energy more and reduces performance, and with multi-missile launchers when you fire the missiles you are left with the launcher. A heavy multiple missile load out may be useful in limited scenarios (shooting down waves of bombers) but that is a rare event. The concept of a heavy missile armed fighter was tried by the USN on a couple of occasions (Douglas F6D and F-111B) and neither idea progressed to an operational fighter.

Extreme measures to reduce wing flex.

Here you go, done with the F-18. It is a short track so if you go to external views it should happen pretty quickly. https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=224556&stc=1&d=1578401723 (Thank you by the way for such a quick reply!) Contrails.trk

You are breaking off TWS long before the missiles go pitbull it seems so they are not getting mid course updates. Partly this is a bug as the elevation should auto track if automatic tracking is selected in TWS. With your number of AMRAAMs you could fire a long range AMRAAM at each which might hit but will at least give them something to think about, crank and then turn back when closer, fire a missile at each and then once they go pitbull disengage.

Just used it with the KC-130 so it does work (was in daytime as well)

This entirely - for OER is great but would be overwhelming for a newcomer. EF is fantastic though still reasonably tough (a reminder of why being in AAA and MANPAD range is so dangerous!), fortunately systems wise it is pretty simple and you quickly get to practise a lot of aspects of the Hornet. There is a Red Flag campaign as well which seems pretty good. The paid Aggressors BFM campaign is ok.

I often find I am in range according to my radar scope but not on until hud thus I often launch before getting a shoot cue and it seems to connect when attacking moving (and evading) targets at a nose hot aspect while at 35k feet Mach 1 which are 30nm away.

Sure thing. Here is a track file (just pulling some G's in the Viper) and here is an example screenshot (tried both Viper and Hornet for good measure and have repaired the installation and re-applied the mod just to check it wasn't something messed up in my files).

It could be that you haven’t got them on your own radar and it is a datalink target. Check they are within your azimuth and elevation for the scan.

Great mod. Makes the cockpit super easy to read and makes the F16 displays much nicer in VR. One issue I have noticed is sometimes the contrails look funny (almost like an old build engine sprite) with the mod on which can be quite distracting. Any clues what that could be? I did adjust down the amount of sharpening and luma to get a more subtle effect (kind of like touching up a photograph).

Found it here; https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229077 Works great, doesn’t seem to have issues with IC for multiplayer.

I doubt a Super Hornet (particularly an early lot) would be 'instant win' compared to a legacy Hornet. The longer legs and added pylons are nice, but the features in A-A that make the Rhino shine over the Hornet (like AESA and IRST) will not be able to be implemented. I think to make it viable an F-18F (with a dedicated RIO pit rather than dual controls) would be a nice point of difference.

A long way behind. The F-16 is an empty shell with a few nice things, while the Hornet is very much mission capable.

Great campaign so far. Just did the second mission and it was such a blast. For VR users get the scratchpad script to copy down the coordinates, it makes it so much easier (first time I found myself completely lost with no coordinates). Really enjoyed that I had to use so many systems of the Hornet to get the job done (refuelling, new waypoints, LSS, JDAM in PP mode, Mavericks and to cap it off a trap just after dusk... with the air boss wanting a word afterwards *gulp*). The only problem I had was my wingman refused to refuel and in the end was circling the target point in full burner so he was not much use... gotta love DCS AI.

I think they should finish the Litening pod and then work on the ground radar, particularly for employing the Harpoon, JSOW and the yet to come SLAM. It would be great if they allowed cheek mounting even as a stand in until the ATFLIR arrives so that we can utilise the double ugly load outs for CAS and SEAD that are used and it would take the pressure off the ATFLIR.

Well the first is simple. The F-18 modeled here can only carry 4 Mav's in real life, it can carry more JSOWs, JDAMs or LGBs as there is a rack mount that allows for it. No such luck for the Maverick on the Hornet. So nothing here to 'fix'. The F-16C can (and will in DCS) carry 6 Mav's, good for it, it is a different aircraft. Don't get what you are trying to say. Yes TGP has no point on HUD... it doesn't make the TGP unusuable. As for the AGM-62 exploding killing you I suspect you are pulling negative G's (or at least <1g) at time of weapon release and colliding with your bomb.