Bunny Clark

Did you have a "Score" of 0 or a "Results" of 0? The two terms are often used interchangeably, but Score is a DCS thing based only on the number of units you killed, while Results is the points from 0-100 that the mission designer gives you and that is what determines success or failure in the campaign. A Results of 0 should not be possible, a Score of 0 would indicate that you didn't kill anything, which wouldn't actually be surprising since aircraft on the ground in DCS are very difficult to kill and the mission is designed such that you only need to damage them to pass. If you got the Miller Time call for your flight you definitely should have passed the mission, those triggers are directly linked. Are you flying the hot start or cold start version?

You can also just read the current barometer settings from the briefing under the WEATHER heading.

This is the Hornet forums Both the NightHawk and ATFLIR pods have, or had, the ability to display NavFLIR imagery on the HUD. Though from what it sounds like from ED, this feature was no longer functional on US Navy Hornets in the timeframe of the module. I'm not exactly sure why support for this function was dropped. But the ATFLIR model we have in game does have a visible lens for the forward-looking NavFLIR sensor on the fairing.

How are you setting up your display export?

This is actually one case where in some ways the DCS damage model is too good. The aircraft damage model is detailed enough that hits to parked aircraft rack up damage to individual systems and structural components that make the aircraft absolutely impossible to fly. But because the plane can't crash into the ground and explode, it doesn't get counted as "destroyed." The result is a weird game disconnect where the aircraft is effectively destroyed but doesn't get marked as destroyed. As ED works on improving the damage model for all units, it will need to find a better way to count units as "destroyed" or not based on operational subsystems, not purely HP remaining. In the meantime, I find it useful to treat aircraft on the ground as tanks, because completely obliterating the fuselage is the only reliable way to destroy them. Hitting them directly with a large guided weapon seems to be the best way to go. GBU-12, JSOW-C, or a Maverick work well. For mission creating, I usually use "unit is damaged" rather than "unit is destroyed" triggers for parked aircraft since they can be so challenging to register as destroyed. Or create a trigger for each target aircraft that just blows it up and creates a nice big fire whenever it gets damaged.

Agreed, these would be awesome. Get a little more Super Hornet software in our Hornet.

To be fair, in the Hornet the MC knows what stores are on the jet through a programming panel on the outside of the jet that the crew sets up as they load ordnance, so the way DCS works is at least a bit realistic in that case. I'm not actually sure how the F-16 does it, is it through the DTC like the Hog?

Western ATC shouldn't even be giving you pressure in QFE at all, it should be QNH pressure at sea level. I hope that'll be fixed with the ATC overhaul.

There are 5 aircraft total to hit, 3 in the open and two in a hanger that your wingman should hit. Did you instruct your wingman to attack his targets?

We don't really know. Unlike the Viper, the Hornet's weapon employment manual is classified. Supposedly ED has some information on this, but we don't have the ability to conclusively cross-check it ourselves. But, IRL the Hornet (and the Navy in general) does not really seem to use the AGM-65F as an anti-tank weapon. In the Navy, the IR Mavs are generally kept as anti-ship missiles while the laser Mavs are used for CAS. The Navy doesn't have any of the light warhead versions like the D. The E and F are both heavy warhead versions like the G and capable of being used against larger targets, while being overkill for single vehicles.

Or mission date is before GPS is available.

I'm not really sure what you're complaining about? When you build a new system, putting it into an API for others to implement seems to be the standard way to do things. Doing a hard swap of the old system for the new one is only going to guarantee that things get broken. In the past when new core APIs are implemented, third party devs have typically been quite quick to include them.

Helicopters are weird. Many people think that because they have a large spinning disk that they will show up very easily on a Doppler radar, but reality is a lot more complex than that. The doppler signature of a rotor disk is partly moving at the radar, part moving away from the radar, and part moving laterally from the radar. The radar will see individual rotor blades, which are rapidly changing doppler signature and aspect. And the body of the aircraft has a radar return as well, which is totally different than the rotors, and the two will interact dynamically as the rotor disk and helicopter moves. Pulse doppler radars work by trying to solve a complex math equation on every returned hit to see if it fits into a known set of variables for doppler shift, speed, and range, relative to the frequencies the radar has transmitted. This problem is easiest to solve for targets with a single high-closure doppler shift, the more confusing the doppler returns off the aircraft the more difficult it is for the radar to figure out what its looking at. Older radar sets had a very hard time with this, modern digital ones are capable of recognizing the unique return of a helicopter and have a better chance of picking them out of the clutter, but it's still not easy.

Probably not the whole time, Depress used to just command an IFF interrogate. It changed maybe a year ago? Oddly they didn't add any of the other Depress+Direction functions at the time, just changed how IFF works.

Book numbers will not, frankly, tell you how a plane flies. They will tell you part of the story, but not the whole story.

It can be hard to translate experience in a real aircraft to how it should fly on a computer. The "seat of the pants" feel in a real aircraft is so important to flight that sitting at a computer will, to some extent, just never feel right. Also, our Hornet has the Enhanced Performance Engines, which not all fleet Hornets got, so it may well feel too powerful to someone who was used to flying Hornets with older engines.

I may know which campaign you're playing. That definitely got a lot harder when the radar started having a hard time locking them up. Sidewinders will still lock fine without a radar lock, just point and uncage. I've found if you fire from right behind them they don't deploy flares, presumably because the pilot can't see you launch the missile. Otherwise, the gun works best. Here you have a choice, you can start from up high and roll in on them like you're strafing a ground target, or you can try to fly low and hit them from the side. I find it easier to line up a gunshot from down low, but it's riskier.

He does, though he's mostly active in the Viper section.

It's not the same F/A-18C the US has. They have different cockpit displays and a touchscreen UFC, similar to the Spanish EF-18s, and an air-to-air spotlight like the CF-18. They were delivered with no A/G capability at all (though the cockpit seems to have retained the A/G master mode button), though that capability has since been somewhat retrofitted. Does anyone even know if it's possible to mount the Swiss pylon to an American Hornet? I'm not sure it's the same pylon as the Super Hornet outer wing pylon, as the Super Hornet can mount HARMs, Mavericks, and Mk.82 class bombs on it while the Swiss can not. Putting a Swiss paintjob on a US Hornet doesn't turn it into a Swiss Hornet anymore than putting a Canadian paintjob on one makes a CF-18, or putting a Spanish paintjob on makes it an EF-18. The module won't sprout a new touchscreen UFC, spotlight on the side of the fuselage, or A/A only pylons. You keep moving the goalposts on this one. The only thing that's unrealistic with the Tomcat is carrying LANTIRN on a non-PTID upgraded aircraft. Heatblur have said they would have loved to have been able to model PTID, but could not find enough information on it. They considered making a cosmetic-only PTID that would swap in on any LANTRIN equipped aircraft, but decided against it. This is a clear concession to gameplay, as removing LANTRIN for want of more PTID info would have a removed a significant amount of capability from the module. Plus, this is a RIO-only issue, a human pilot flying the module would never know the difference, nor would anyone who isn't pixel peeping into the rear cockpit from the outside. It's a small sacrifice in realism for a significant gain in features. Can you honestly say the single AMRAAM rail on the Hornet is an equivalent issue? The only "feature" you gain is a less draggy loadout when carrying a single missile on a station, in exchange for mounting a pylon that has never been used by a US Hornet, may not even be capable of mounting on a US Hornet, and is sitting on the outside of the aircraft for everyone in the game to see.

The volume panel is on the left side console, close to the throttle. Identify which radio he is talking to you on (COM1 or COM2), then you can turn down the volume on that radio.

Me too. I'm building a campaign that will require a fair bit of MGRS input.

It's not done yet. We should be getting more MGRS support yet.

How convenient someone has already done that. Turns out it's pretty close: https://dcs.silver.ru/Diagram/F16C Mike T-Day (https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/045-f-16-fighting-falcon/) is one of ED's Viper SMEs. Are you questioning his competency or integrity?

I assume that Pakistani F-16s and JF-17s are capable of sharing data with one another. But Pakistan is not a NATO member, and are probably communicating using something other than Link 16 / MIDS. Since the DCS F-16 is a USAF model, not being able to communicate with a Pakistani aircraft is not particularly surprising.

Yup. Bullseye is primarily an air-to-air reference point and if it's used for an air-to-ground reference it'll be for a very approximate location at best. IRL, sending points on the ground using the TGP would be done with a datalink push, or manually using L/L or MGRS coordinates.