Cytarabine

Yep, given his other post is wanting to modify the engines to be more powerful I suspect he would be much happier playing ace combat. Not that there is anything wrong with that! Having to nurse your resources to get you to the target and back isn’t for everyone. (For some reason my quote of ST0RM didn’t appear but of course am referencing his post)

It has more features implemented. If this is completed then that is very disappointing because it is far from bug free or complete in its implementation.

It has a section now.

Yes absolutely. We need to know when Jeff is around.

Anticipation intensifies. I know I asked earlier and you weren’t certain but since the super carrier is apparently getting closer (and the cinematic looked impressive, who knows if it will live up to it) any further thoughts on how it will influence the campaign? Will the JF-17 be sitting in for the experimental super fighter?

Absolutely. Clearly ED know it is cool given they included it in the video so come on!

Great news indeed. If this is what parallel development leads to than I can live with that.

So the answer to that is no with a caveat. If you want full coverage while still generating track files you have LTWS which will generate track files on RWS targets which when you are ready to engage you can select TWS.

Don't get your hopes up too much, they are starting to work on it, whether we see it in December who knows. I am betting early new year before we see anything concrete.

Not how it works - implicitly a target need not have a waypoint, particularly if it is a target which you are not going to go terribly near - for example if you are using a JSOW to strike from beyond SAM range. Equally a waypoint may not be specific enough for a target location. TOO mode is basically taking data from any targeting system (be it the navigation system, TPOD, HUD/JHMCS or ground radar) and forwarding it to the weapon which is then deployed.

Well there is a reason why you have each radar mode. VS for finding targets at the longest range. RWS for identifying targets at range with maximal SA. TWS for engaging a target (or multiple) while maintaining situation awareness. STT to engage a single target with as detailed a track as possible (for fast maneuvering targets or closer ranges). Once you bug a target in either SAM or TWS your scan volume is decreased.

Sounds good. I will believe it when I see it but if they deliver than that will be a good step forward. I suspect there has been a degree of getting the Viper up to speed with the Hornet to allow for parallel development to happen. Perhaps we will see a push on Hornet systems for the time being and some more weapons to the Viper (hopefully after we get the SLAM-ER). If they play it right then in the end this parallel development process could pay off in the end.

Nice missions, despite being the same mission the feel is quite different in the Viper than in the Hornet, particularly mission 3.

That would be a great era for a scenario. The Hornet could do the striking with Walleyes (they are big bombs) while the Viper does SEAD and CAS. CAP duties could be performed by Mirages providing close in CAP with Tomcats providing additional cover perhaps coming up to cover the retreat of the strike package.

So I guess this means the ‘push’ on TWS and the TGP for the Hornet is kicked down the road another week while the Viper gets sorted out?

Yeah as much as I love the Mirage the 2000C we have is a tough fit against the early 21st century fighters. If you compare it to a contemporary Hornet or Viper it holds up quite well, the Magic II is quite a good missile, and the 530D is good for a semi-active radar homing missile. Realistically it would probably be doing CAP in a less active sector, maybe doing HVACAP with an AWACS or tanker?

Assuming this is with 'complete' modules that have all their features; SEAD - Viper - having the HTS pod just makes it that bit more capable in SEAD CAP - Hornet - more missiles means can stay out there longer (likely with a 3 bags, AIM-9X on the wingtips, 2 x AIM-120C on each outer pylon and an AIM-120 on each fuselage mount), better radar (the APG-73 SHOULD be better than the APG-68v5, whether it will be is another question) Interdiction - Hornet, it is faster with an A-G load than the Viper CAS - Viper, more Maverick goodness Anti-shipping - Hornet, no Harpoon, no contest Striking a heavily defended target - Hornet, SLAM-ER complementing the JSOW Ultimately other than anti-shipping where the lack of a dedicated anti-shipping missile is a big factor they are pretty even matches across the spectrum.

There were experiments with prone pilot positions for this reason (and allowing a reduced frontal aspect so reducing drag).

Ummm... Okay. Have you been trying to fly the Viper with the FLCS turned off again? Edit... Oh no I get it, been sniffing the Hydrazine in the EPU... that stuffs nasty!

So I played around with my settings on my system (Ryzen 3600, 32gb RAM, 2700S and Rift S) and found by turning pixel density to 1.5, cockpit displays to 1024 and turning off MSAA the displays popped in to readability. 1.5 was the lower limit, 1.6 a little better but diminishing returns for the performance hit. Turning off ASW seemed to help as well. While the Hornet I seem to be able to get away with a lower pixel density and add msaa to smooth out the jaggies no such option with the Viper.

What direction is the wind coming from and how strong?

It does indeed.

... and now the Walleye makes sense.

I wouldn’t bother with Grim Reapers for tutorials, they are more entertainment than tutorial (not saying that is a bad thing, Red Kite just does it so well it is hard to compare)

So I just discovered something (which I am sure is no duh to anyone) about the Walleye. If you have a target from another source (e.g. waypoint) designated as soon as you uncage the seeker head it will go straight for it and give you a time to release cue on the HUD. Used it during the "Dawn Raiders" mission and was quite useful in getting my Walleye looking into the target area. Haven't tried it with a TGP but I don't see why it wouldn't work (you just couldn't have datalink, but still if you have designated a specific target that might be a non-issue).