Druid_

Slew rate is known and will change in a future patch.

The slew rate for AGMs will prob change in a future patch. The TDC depress however will prob not, you can however assign another button on your HOTAS for TDC depress and exactly what I have done.

I can confirm, ZERO changes were made to the Flight Model. If you'd really like to see FM changes from patch to patch you could save a .trk file and then replay it in the newer patch. In fact this goes for a lot of things and something I do regularly when testing.

Good Vid. The Brit Royal Air Force does all its Low-Level at 250ft and in certain training areas down to 100ft. 100ft concentrates the mind somewhat especially in UK where the weather is often a factor ! Cows look really big from down there too ;)

Ch18 for tanker iirc.

It's not an easy mission especially with Aim-7s. Try locking each target on radar and assigning a wingman to engage each one. Pick a left or rightmost target for yourself. Use F pole and notch manoeuvres to evade. I always end up on the deck in this one as at least I have ground cover and the fight is more 2D. Disengaging and re-engaging is a valid tactic (unless you are outnumbered then run away bravely). Good luck.

Low temp cat launch failure, Fixed internally.

FYI Radalt hold will not work above 5000ft.

The gear drag modelling was too high and is now much closer to reality. This translates to less power required to maintain speed or AoA. It also means that throttle response will feel higher as a small increase in power now equals better acceleration. Conversely however, a decrease in power equals slower deceleration. I've been flying both gear drag models for a while and the way it is now certainly feels easier and more forgiving to me. It won't take too long for players to adjust to the throttle adjustments I don't think. As for trapping, I don't notice any changes at all. I am literally flying the Hornet and the ball on AOA all the way to touchdown. I don't feel the need to reduce or increase power at all once over the boat. carrier island burble and wind effects are not modelled but ground effect is. A bug regarding ground effect over the boat has been logged but as far as I can see has not been changed. Maybe you could attach a .trk file and maybe I can see what you are doing? It depends when you start your break and how you execute it. If its 2-4 seconds past the bow then there isn't much time but it is possible. Personally I would let the nose drop whilst in the turn and 20 degrees before reciprocal BRC as its much smoother and easier (no hard and fast rules on this in boat ops). If you are going for a slick continuous break without a roll out then you simply start your initial 90 high and increase your rate of descent to arrive at the 90 at around the correct altitude and at the start of the groove at the right altitude e.g...….. The 'numbers' I see mentioned help you to arrive at the start of the groove at the correct height, distance and AoA. I wouldn't get too hung up on the numbers but fly the aircraft as needed to arrive at the groove correctly. e.g. Break too tight = keep higher AoA and higher AOB through first 90, sort out AoA in final 90.

No apology necessary. Nothing wrong with healthy discussion hopefully leading to better clarity & ultimately correct modelling. I must admit to reading that particular section in Natops four times before figuring it out.

TAWS is more like EGPWS which uses GPWS inputs and a terrain database to provide forward looking protection. GPWS is an older system that works on radar altimeter, INS and configuration/air data sensors to avoid CFIT (Controlled Flight into Terrain). Usually it is always armed. On some aircraft you are able to disarm certain modes (e.g. Gear, flaps). On the F18 it appears to use GPWS inputs to a TAWS without digital terrain mode if the digital mapping database is not loaded (or possibly fitted) into the aircraft (as well as over the sea). From Natops it does look like GPWS provides additional voice commands for Sink rates and gear not down in addition to the many TAWS commands. I'm reading a little between the lines here based on experience because as always, NATOPS doesn't provide all of the answers as its designed for pilots and not systems engineers. You would need the manufacturers guides to realise exactly how a system is integrated and works fully. With regard to the comments in this thread I would be very careful quoting single sentences within a system explanation. Some of the Natops grammar is quite poor (as quoted from many mil pilots incl myself). 'POWER POWER' below 210 kts for instance might simply relate to the system being armed for certain modes like sink rate and Angle of Bank detection. So a high sink rate at 220 kts doesn't trigger an aural 'POWER' command but at 209kts it will. Likewise an AOB of 50 degrees at 211 kts will not trigger a 'ROLL L/R' warning but at 209 kts it will. Natops states 'A ″Power...Power″ warning is issued when the roll requirement conditions have not been met and adding power is the correct initial response. This occurs when the aircraft is below 200 KCAS (mynote: 210kts for AFC 253 or 292 or F/A-18 C/D aircraft), the AOA is above 8.5° with flaps HALF or FULL (or 18° AOA for flaps AUTO) and the throttle is not already at MAX.' ---NOTE: It states "when the roll requirement conditions have not been met". This could mean that you are in a banked turn with in excess of 45 AOB as well as <210kts , >8.5AOA with flaps Half or Full and the better initial response than rolling L/R in such a condition is to add power. IF you continue to ignore this advice it will then issue a PULL UP command.

I'll look into this but I think there might be some internal confusion. There was a problem with high temp Cat failures which was fixed, I think cold temp fix is still being worked on.

This issue has been reported and logged internally. Thanks.

Known issues along with a couple of other AP mode issues. Thanks.

Wait, 80 to 95%....that is what I would consider a wide range. It's also low/mid to a high setting. Are you aware of the thrust difference between those settings? The last time I tested engine response was admittedly a couple of months ago but from approach idle to 100% back then it was 4 secs. I cannot fly as I'm away from PC for 2 weeks. You haven't provided any answers to my questions but feel free to test against this data ...

Can you post a video of a 3 second high rpm responce as I'm not seeing it. As I said, are you having this experience of poor thrust responce clean? You have compared your findings with RL engine data? Its not that I dont believe youtube I just find manufacturer performance graphs more accurate in testing. This from someone who started on the Viper ASV20 engine thru countless others right up to the GE90. Approach idle is usually for go around performance (quicker acceleration to max thrust) & for better stall/surge protection.

Like I said in my post. The problem is gear drag. If profile drag is modelled incorrectly then it will feel as though thrust is the problem especially if drag increases as thrust increases to the point that the acceleration is very small. Tell me, does the thrust response feel off when clean? Close formation is a good indicator of thrust response. Have you downloaded the Natops or -404 engine manuals and checked rpm and engine thrust response times (acceleration over time etc)? I don't think tuning a DCS aircraft by listening to YouTube videos is going to produce accurate results As an example, my testers build only requires 83% right now when on the glidepath in PAM. The engine modelling has not changed. Thrust response 'feels' far better with smaller throttle movements required to maintain correct flightpath. P.s A 3 second delay to achieve the correct thrust is realistic but depends on your start rpm and desired rpm. Low bypass engines accelerate faster then high bypass engines. Smaller engines generally accelerate faster than larger engines. None of them have instantaneous thrust over a wide range, that would be rocket motors.

This is something that will hopefully change and will be based purely on time of day, cloudbase and visibility rather than an ATC call.

The problem in the current version is drag modelling, Gear drag modelling is almost there and was responsible for a lot of the extra drag as it was definitely too high. Tuning everything is a complex process, as changing one thing affects another, but ED are doing a great job getting there. The AoA stability is also another thing being looked at. The way this translates right now is that you are fighting the drag with very high throttle settings and just a very small reduction from the ideal setting results in a larger than normal rates of descent and VV movement. As a result throttle movements have to be constantly on and off around the ideal setting as the 'sweet spot' as its been called is too difficult to find accurately. In short, it's going to get easier so don't lose heart if your struggling a little now. At the end of the day it's all good fun and what you learn now will stand you in good stead. My own 404 research shows 4 secs from idle to Mil (about right for this type of engine) & my tests show that's correct within a nats c*ck. The time taken to accelerate from say 80 to 88 is no different than from 88 to 96. By all means post videos with on screen timers to correct me. I shalln't delve into high bypass versus low bypass jet engine spool times as there is a myriad of info on net there ready for googleFu 'ing.

I think I used a combination of lowest cloudbase and 1400ft visibility & 14 turbulence. The light is wake in one of the builds and not correct. The second video is more accurate in the most recent beta version but could do with some wake visible prior to landing. Vertical visibility in fog is different to horizontal visibility. It's been reported. IRL you wouldn't be doing a manual ICLS approach with much less than 500m of visibility.

And @everyone. The problem in the current version is drag modelling, Gear drag modelling is almost there and was responsible for a lot of the extra drag as it was definitely to high. Tuning everything is a complex process, as changing one thing affects another, but ED are doing a great job getting there. The AoA stability is also another thing being looked at. The way this translates right now is that you are fighting the drag with very high throttle settings and just a very small reduction from the ideal setting results in a larger than normal rates of descent and VV movement. As a result throttle movements have to be constantly on and off around the ideal setting as the 'sweet spot' as its been called is too difficult to find accurately. In short, it's going to get easier so don't lose heart if your struggling a little now. At the end of the day it's all good fun and what you learn now will stand you in good stead. P.s. Trim is fine, it's all about using the correct technique :)

For a 350kt break I don't use speedbrake and ease off turn and AOB after first 90 degrees else you'll end up tight to the boat. That said tight breaks and continuous turning all the way to trap are fun. G loading is important in slowing you down below 250 whereby gear & flap drag can then assist. Load G to slow but also be aware of your spacing from the carrier, so don't be afraid to load, unload for spacing and load G again. There are no hard rules here, it's calling 'flying the aircraft'. If you're too tight then keep some speed and use 45 degrees AOB for a while. Whatever works to get you to the groove at the right height and point.

In the Hornet, the needles are not flight directors, they are deviation indicators. There is a big difference between the 2. For flight director bars you would simply place your velocity vector (VV) on the bars and follow - easy huh. However, for deviation indicators you must put them in the correct position by 'pushing' them into the desired position. 1. For correct glidepath you do the following. a. at intercept follow the horizontal needle/bar down to around 3 degrees. Then wait. b. If needle falls below your VV towards say -4 degrees of pitch then you lower your VV to around -5 degrees and 'push' it back up to -3. Follow it up but just underneath to continue the push. When it's at ~-3 degrees place VV over needle to maintain the correct glideslope. c. If needle starts to climb upwards away from your ideal glideslope then place your VV above it to 'push' it back down then use a similar technique as for b. above. [Note I've said 3 degrees but the exact angle depends on what the carrier has set and its forward speed] 2. For correct localiser (lateral course) it's a little more complex as you have no definite reference (e.g. 3 degrees for glideslope). However, if you know the carriers BRC then you know the runways heading. Use the Tacan indicator on your HUD as a point of reference for knowing what heading to fly to 'push' your vertical localiser needle left or right to maintain the runway centreline. Other tips. a. Smooth small movements when adjusting. b. Wait for adjustment to start taking affect then adjust as necessary to maintain or decrease needle movement by placing VV closer to the needle. DO NOT chase needles. c. Put your ADI on a MFD as right now deviation bars are easier to see on it and small deviations are easier to see (will change as HUD needles are improved). d. Tune the ships tacan. If it helps with situational awareness put HSI on other mfd and slew course line to runway heading (BRC minus 9). REMEMEBER the runway is moving so your aircrafts heading should always be slightly to the right (starboard) of the runway heading to maintain the centreline. (think of it as a crosswind from the right). f. Set your rad alt alarm to 270 & if you don't have the OLS and centreline lights in sight then wave off. g. Note, as you get closer to the ship the needles become more sensitive as small changes in deviation from Rwy centreline or correct glidepath are realised as larger angles. I.e. 50ft right off the centreline at 3nm is 0.16 degrees angle offset R of runway heading whereas at 0.3nm it is 1.6 degrees. This results in a far bigger right deviation on the vertical indicator. How this translates to you as the pilot is simply this, the closer you are to the runway the smaller your adjustments need to be to push the needles into the correct place. So for point 1. you would lower to just under 4 degrees and not 5 to push needle up when close to runway. Lastly, practice your instrument scan. It's easy when starting out to get transfixed on adjusting one thing only to lose control of another. My scan involves 90% HUD and 10% ADI. Priority over maintaining heading and rate of descent, heading in relation to tacan bar at top of HUD (Rwy heading) then rate of descent to maintain correct or adjusted pitch. Next is deviation needles position and movement followed by an occasional glance at 1. Tacan range so I can adjust my range of adjustments as I get closer & 2. Altitude. Here are a couple of ICLS's I did when testing ICLS. I would add there are 2 issues affecting flying accurate ICLS right now (as of 30 July). Firstly, the DCS hornet in approach mode (PAM) has negative roll stability (should be neutral to positive) and the ICLS bars are too small with possibly originating localiser beam offset too far right (still evaluating). IMHO Mastering case3 is a great way to improve your case1 & 2 approaches.

If you get this problem can you pop a post in the bugs section and attach a .trk file please.

For those having issues getting ICLS to work please try and create a new simple mission rather than add to an existing mission. I think there might be a bug, I am still investigating but if you find that adding to existing mission isn't working whereas creating a new one is, please let me know.