falcon_120

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.

It would be nice to have some kind of penalty for exceding those limits during enough time or repeatedly, like increasing the ods of in flight failure. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Sorry, but i dont follow your logic, really. I can't see how a macro doing all the checklists will translate to going over simplified system. I'm sure at ED they won't understand it like that either. I state it again, just ED is gathering info over this: " I Want full fidelity systems" period, i want them understanding that some part of them bore me sometimes, like cold starting them so i appreciate the help. My fun comes afterwards: managing the TGP, the radar, creating a flight plan in flight, checking engine temperatures, checking in before combat, AAR, etc... For all that i need all the systems simulated. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

You lost the point. I wouldnt as a customer buy anything other than high fidelity, even though i use autostart quite often for some planes. The reason i and many others use Autostart has nothing to do with wanting simplied systems. I use that option because of life and my limited time to be proficient in the more than 10 ACs that i own and regularly fly, and because from all parts of complex modern air combat jets, the startup sequence is the one that got me bored sooner, hence i do it when i have enough time and i skip it while doing others things in a normal life 25 min session. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Mmm maybe... The problem i see with this is the difficulty to discern that from bugs in a time where missiles are being reworked and many bugs still exists. I would be more keen of that idea once some years have passed and all missiles have been reworked and we have a solid foundation and their behavior is polished enough to consider that option. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I am lightly dissapointed by some of the Harrier exisiting bugs. On the other hand I can say it is in a state that allows fun in many missions, specially in MP where i mostly play in. Regarding the out of EA, I agree that a bare minimum like a finished manual should be there. I do hope that the product sustainment state is as good in the harrier as it is in the mirage 2000. Lets not forget the whole picture and get things out of proportion. I will give them the benefit of the doubt for one more year, but indeed I will think twice before going into the F15E depending how things evolve.

I've learned to make the autostsrt time my coffee and take a leak time [emoji23] Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Exactly this. Its the same case for me. On a regular day, if the job, the girlfriend or other daily stuffs allows, i have time for a 20 min multiplayer session where i want to go to the air as fast as possible, and if it i take a jet i dont master, i need to check the procedure cause i may forgot some crucial step. So those days the autostart is very important to me. On holidays with 8 hours playtime ahead i love to enjoy the startup with no help. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Omg those codes :/, french engineers had to be... (kidding :p) Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk