theinmigrant

Good catch! I always thought It was intentional behaviour, but if the manual says no...

No, I always put ground idle and still the effect of the breaks is close to nothing

Duh, I now saw your video, sorry for wasting your time :doh:

Should'nt I see the STEP button in the stores page?

This 120% I never understood why ED discarded this so quickly every time. I know they know much more than all of us about the Hornet, but when something is really off maybe it is worth looking.

I noticed this when landing on the dirt in the middle of the desert by emergency

I just don't understand why this wasn't thought before. I mean, come on, ED has a lot of experience in this industry to have this slipped through.

Track attached by Jak! Thanks Jak. NL, let us know what the team thinks. cheers.

Not quite true. There are a lot of pilots (real ones) that told stories of about mavericks locking bushes and stuff like that.

For me target points with the TGP are exactly 100% in the same position as if it was a waypoint, so the TGP works perfect as of now. I tested it A LOT. The issue in positioning is reported in another thread I made (still unmarked) and it has to do with the MAV F not the TGP. Also tested this a lot. I strongly think we are talking about the same thing here. But the point here is to help so it doesn't matter what track gets used to show to the team. Thanks.

Same thing, watch the entire track :) At the end I show how a tank, in the middle of the movement towards a different TGT, is locked by the seeker.

Yes, since day 1. WIP I guess. Still much left to put in the oven ;)

BTW I have realistic tdc and I always had this issue.

Yeah, but the reproduction of the issue is the same IMO: If the mav seeker goes over a target even if it wasnt the point you designated it will still lock it. If you would have had two tanks in that track it would have locked the other one. I hope it still helps the team. If not, you still have Harker's track now uploaded. Thanks!

In my humble opinion, this is one of the most critical bugs of the AG current simulation. It would be very healthy for DCS if the great dev team ED has could check this. Thanks and sorry for the bump.

Yeah, I just read that. I'll have to admit, I don't like simplified implementations, I hate classified information. I get the point though. I'm just so dissapointed that the Hornet ended up having so much classified data and so many simplified systems. Sorry for the offtopic, just needed to get it out of my system.

I reported this but it somehow got merged with something that had nothing to do with it, so I guess I'll just put it over here again. The altitude and mach should be displayed in the radar page when hovering over datalinked symbols. If the team has different information it will be welcome of course. Thanks.

Hi guys! I wanted to ask something about this. How does the D/L freq work exactly? And also, what about the Tacan that now doesn't need to be ON for the D/L to work? (It must be on according to Natops, due to them sharing spectrum) Thanks!

Please no! On behalf of a big portion of the community I sincerely do not want ED to make stuff up, all we want is as much realism as possible.

I don't see them either, nor I see the one Harker put in the first post :( Here the one I had put, hope we can all see it. MAV F slave throughbug.trk

Thanks NL. Imagine you see one or more contacts that are being donated but your current radar cone cannot see it/them. Then the pilot needs to slew the tdc over the donated HAFU and check its altitude so he can adjust the radar accordingly and lock. If the pilot has to go to the SA page, then mentally correlate which one is the one that he saw in the radar page, then hover tdc, then go back to radar, then adjust radar settings, then lock... By the time he did all of that he's dead. I strongly don't believe America wants their pilots in an aircraft that was built like that :) Thanks anyway.

I just checked real quick and during STT we still have all the MSI info, which I think is awesome! Are you saying that it should not happen and in the future ED will remove that? :(

Nevermind, I noticed that the bug is not with the gimbal but with the aspect of the aircraft with regards of the target. thanks and apologies for the mistake, I have created the correct bug report. Thanks ED.

Track attached! :):):)

I have attached two tracks demonstrating that the MAV F slaves to different points depending on aircraft aspect regarding target. One track is for TGP and the other one is for waypoint designation. Please I feel confident you'll see the tracks, please don't disregard this thread so quickly. Thanks ED. MAV F slave bug.trk MAV F slave v2 bug.trk