falcon_120

dont know if its me and the placebo effect but i noticed the a10 more nimble after this patch. Its also true that i did not load it like a bomb truck, just 2 mavericks, 2 GBU38s, sidewinders and the TPOD

To be fair that logic is flawed. Soldiers and special forces train in knife fighting but its not because they expect their rifles to break. Its just because not all fights start where you'd like them to. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

In the last video they dont even get the IN RANGE cue before they shoot, so i dont think that was accurate at all.

Track attached TGP Mk slave bug.trk

In any case, under good launch paramenter, like angels 30 and above and speed close to Mach 1, you will fin that you are able to lauch JDAMs just outside of SA11 maximum range, which is quite impressive standoff distance.

PENDING TRACK, I will upload one in a few hours. Way to reproduce. 1-Take a TGP 2-Make Several Markpoints 3-Go to Markpoint 1, hit WPDDSG 4-Increment Markpoint to MK 2, hit WPDDSG 5-Increment again and hit WPDDSG After some iterations (Within existing markpoints), the TGP will be stuck and it will not be possible to slave the sensor to the markpoint (also applies to waypoints). EDIT: Sorry for the title typo, i meant does now *work*

We have to include a track, I will join GS server later and save a track.

Yeah DL is not working in MP. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Yeah I know how to create them through the MFDs. I want to know if doing it via Hotas was a thing in the real plane, more so given the name of the hotas switch...

RECCE Mark point switch? Now that we have markpoints, shouldn't the RECCE mark hotas switch create a markpoint when pressed? Is it coming later?

For me the most efficient and above all reliable way is through manual scan, 4bars 40 degrees. I will play with the scan the whole time to make sure both targets are "painted" every 2/3 seconds at most. I dont find AUTO reliable enough to keep the targets updated during hard maneuvers (cranking and abrupt changes in height) With manual mode and 4 bars scan, even when limited to 40 degress, the radar behaves really well when you move the tdc from one target to the other, given that they are far apart, no need to do that when they are close together of course., and the 4bars allow me to attack targets while covering both low fliying targets and medium too relatively high ones. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

We had a poll to prioritize upcoming features, you can find it in this section I think. There you will find if the ecm is planned for 2020 or will make it in 2021 EDIT: Found it! Its planned for 2020 https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Eeagle%2Eru%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D276224&share_tid=276224&share_fid=74365&share_type=t&link_source=app Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

They have apparently fixed it according to the new OB patch notes. I haven't tried it yet though.

Just saw this Biga42. Indeed its one of the function i use most in my hotas. It gives you a clear picture of the incoming enemy (is he higher than me, coming fast or slow...)

I think they've stated at some point that this one was fixed internally along with other Radar bugs (A2G Exp modes breaking radar logic). I hope it make it to today's OB patch.

Not in my country. Glasses are not allowed, neither corrective surgery like laser. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

You are forgetting they are readable in RL because: 1-The definition of our eyes is much better than current VR and monitors (in general) and 2-Pilot normally have at least above average visual acuity. So yes, they can read the MFD, but i'm sure is more comfortable in a hornet than in a F16 given size and position. And regarding how i do it, i play in VR exclusively and i have a HOTAS button for quick zoom in, so i just look at the MFD and press that button when i need it, bending myself towards the MFD also helps if i need to, it should be the exact same for trackir users.

If that is the case i would argue to not include it. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I will try to simplify my PoV: What is the limitation avoiding 4 HARMS config in the viper? Is it purely operational, or is it indeed structural? Maybe station 4 and 8 does not allow for LAU88? If the limitation is purely operational and it could be used; though luckily it has not being used up to now, in a total war scenario, then model it, and let servers limit the quantity to 2 if they wish for more realistic scenarios, allowing for SP people to create their fictional campaigns around WWIII. If the limitation is structural or those pylons do not have "the wiring" required to launch AGM88, then please don't add it.

Maybe I was not too clear in my previous post. What I meant is: I dont think DCS right now have the underlying logic of assigning different frequencies to different equipments, they are just different units (SAM, aircrafts, whatever) and they use a flag to determine if a sensor like a RWR or HARM should detect the unit or not, rather than the most correct logic that would be if the sensor could detect anything on a given specific frequency band. So I guess that while developing the HAS mode for the F16 they have come across an implementation using different tables, which i'm sure is correct, but the physics behind it are that tables groups emitters in a similar radar band. So in order to replicate that in the hornet (Unless there is another explanation like that the hornet RWR is providing targets to the HARM sensor in TOO mode) they should replicate search times for different bands. Also in the hornet there are filters that rights now are something like "HOS" por hostile emitters, FRND for friendly emitters, etc... Something that seems quite arcadish, and it is more credible that those filters are actually used similar to the viper, in order to reduce search times. EDIT: Sniped by Quigon, I agree with the previous post.

Don't know if they even consider different frequencies of radar systems (S,L...). I think right now is more like: Magic! there you have all the SAMs... I suppose the tables in the F16 are actually grouped by emitter frequency band, so they might just use the same logic...

I've thought of another plausible explanation. Since i guess any dedicated F16 squadron, will ALWAYS use the HARM with the HTS pod, maybe they have modelled the HARM HAS mode using old documentation coming from earlier HARMs blocks and/or F16 models? They did something similar in the hornet, using documentation from spanish F18A litening pods... I guess there will be substantial differences in cappabilities between HARMs blocks given the advances in digital signal processing...

It's a good question indeed. The answer might be : -It is somehow simplified for the hornet. -The hornet mission computer helps the HARM in the search, so the missile is actually searching all the time, all the codes, and the mission computer or weapon control system store that data to present it all at once. It is true for example that the integration in the hornet is different and its tied to the RWR without the need of a HTS. So within that integration I guess there is some advanced functionality, for example the SP mode where you can engage targets behind you with the HARM (don't know if realistic but it is impressive). Ok, enough guesses and speculation on my side :), Now please the real experts chime in.

The set function is really helpful and I use it a lot, i have my preferred setting for Sidewinders and for Amraams, so when i exit ACM mode through the NWS button i normally go to Amraam which is my preferred scan pattern.

Excellent job. Just a minor correction, within DCs the SA11 is very capable against HARMS.