falcon_120

I do think the HMD brightness when at maximum its still too dim to see on a normal sunny day. On the contrary the've made a wonderful work on the AH64 Ihadss symbology as even in sunny days you can perfectly see the data against the background.

I dont know what we'll get, but i can tell you what can be the main improvement i would hope to get from this "additional MSI functions". With proper MSI, all the tracks (red and green symbols you see on your Radar MSI overlay) will be tracks generated by any of the aircraft onboard sensors, mainly the radar & link 16, but also FLIR and RWR to some degree. This means that as long as you see these tracks, you can select them, get information from them, and cue your sensors to them. For example, if you are on a TWS-Auto mode you can cycle through all the existing MSI tracks with your NWS button, and the radar will make its best to center the scan volume on the maximum number of exisitng tracks, but always including the selected one. This is critical as right now if you have a track selected lets say on the left of your scope, and new track appears on the right of your scope, you need to 1:un-select TWS auto and go to Manual, 2:TDC depress on the track on the right and 3:TWS-Auto again when your own radar detects it. As you may see this is completely inadeccate and inneficient flow for BVR fights. In the same manner, you can have your radar on Silent mode and cycle through all available tracks, and only when you need to launch a amraam you can use your radar to go out of silence (there is even a quick look mode but i dont know if we'll get that). If you have your radar on silence and you select a existing Link 16 track you'll have a "NO RADAR" cue below the TD Box alerting you that your radar is not contributing to that track. In summary, this would be massive to the way the hornet works in A2A, and the main cause of complaints of people saying that the F18 radar is difficult to manage compared to the F15/F16 radar.

Wow, nice update. Everytime i read they are working on further F18 MSI functionality i get a hard-on . Also lovely to read that AIM7s might stop being useless against jammers (looking at you M2000), but i need to test that in MP.

is it the recently announced save game feature also something for >1 year from now? I took it as a upcoming (soon) addition. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

How about better AWACS or general C2 comms, i cant believe how something so foundational of modern air combat is not worked on, even more when other sims out there have it already available and working much better. Its hard to play a red flag campaing or even basic Fighter sweep mission with current comms TBH. I hope ED will give this some thought, shouldn't be a HUGE task, only a BIG task :). Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

My point was not about servers, read again, matter of fact in all servers i play (all of them very crowded like contention, ECW...) if i have the pre-aligned option in my harrier it can be used with no problems. I was directing my requests to developers and my critique to those users that always complain about these usability&inclusiveness options. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I would not expect any integration of a A2G weapon that has not been in active service for the last at least 5-8 Years. This does not include weapons that are planned to be integrated in the platform but today are still not there. How would HB get information on the Man/machine interface and use flows (things like MFD, symbology,etc...) if the weapon is not even yet on the plane? I'm just happy if we receive additional weapons to that of the German version (like ASRAAM and Brimstones). Regards,

This. To add on this, for some modules i need to use the magic button (aka autostart) since i cant learn them all (though i can cold start like 8 planes/choppers). If i may, i am really happy that some developers like Razbam, enable stored alignment options for the INS. I have too little time these days to wait on a 4 min INS alignment everytime i fancy a flight in a MP server. When im older if i have more time and can join a squadron that makes realistic missions i will make full procedures and i will find the joy on that, including full briefing and debrief for a total of 2/3 hours per mission. However, many people on this community are control freaks that won't even allow anyone to request options for faster real flight time, like pre stored INS or hot starts for those that have less time. It is getting too close to warthunder or ace combat by their rigid mental framework. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

If someone calls you a troll for a sincere post like that, you know who the troll is. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

In general, i'm quite happy with the hornet, its my most used module so there's that caveat as i've learned to operate it very efficiently and i can workaround any known issues, so definitely not really complaining. I'm aware as new changes are introduced there is always the chance to introduce some bug, like the current HACQ/LHACQ glitch where you might loose the lock if you maneuver while using it, and that's fine, you can work around that if you're mindful of it. My previous remarks regarding the long time to transition to STT was rather a question, even though i made it like a statement, sorry about that. I remember than from very long ago the hornet radar simulation in DCS have always had this long transition period to STT, where the radar seems to do a sort of miniraster around the target, taking to get a solid lock between 2 to up to 5/6 seconds in my experience in some circumstances. This might be actually not a bug but a realistic implementation, and this is what i don't know and i've asked in the past. We could very well be in a situation of a poorly implementation of other modules, and very realistic implementation in the hornet. I have never seen a Apg73 radar tape going from a RWS to a STT or from a TWS to a STT lock to compare and say for certain whether this needs to be looked at, or its totally fine like it is now. Just wanted to clarify my previous post. Thanks. Regards, BONUS REQUEST: Anyone have a non restricted clip of the apg73 radar? I've always be curious to see it (i've seen plenty of the F16/F15) but none of the APG73.

Is the work on Radar issues include STT logic changes @Lord Vader? For some reson the hornet radar implementation takes between 2 to 5 seconds to get a STT track from a RWS when doing a SCS right over a brick or track. All other modules including the F16 can get almost instant STT locks. Its really nerve-wracking waiting to get that lock when you are in a hurry. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Fair enough, I'm happy with whatever i can get (eg. revised r77) :). Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Or include a R77-1 for modern time periods

Define easy XD. I can magine a lot of nuances and complexities in just some seconds. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I'm hoping for a patch this last week of September, but whatever it takes to be as bug free as possible to be honest.

I like the IAG a lot, specially if allows to create some basic fighter sweep missions protecting a strike package or the likes of it. Current mission gemerator is too simplistic. Btw is this coming soon or is it like the save game feature, announced and never showing up again? Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Yeah, thats what i thought to be the case for later version like superhornet and F22/F35 just not sure if it was the case for our lot20, but it makes sense, in the end if you have a track you have a position to send to your missile, now depending on the track quality this position and speed will actually be very accurate or very low confidence. I suspect there is a minimum track quality that allows a amraam shot (eg. not just a rwr generated track). Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

So right now the way it works in DCS is the following: -You have track files coming from other sources (red and green simbols for illustration purposes). However, when you're in TWS you can only bug those tracks that are seen by your Radar, and thus your TWS AUTO scan will not center on a target until you can detect it and bug it. Problem: If you are in TWS auto with one contact bugged; let's say at the left of your scope and going low, and a more relevant threat appears; lets say at a higer altitude or some 50/60 degrees to your the right of your scan area, you cannot do anything to select that contact if at that moment its outside your radar coverage, the current implementation is preventing you from this when you are in AUTO TWS. The way around this is clicking MANUAL, moving your radar cone to the more relevant threat, and once detected by your radar and designated it click AUTO again to manevour freely without having to adjust manually the scan height and azimuth. CORRECT IMPLEMENTATION (based on MSI known information for which i don't have the sources but is described even in some of the available NATOPS manuals). -Any MSI track is a track, meaning that your weapon system doesn't care if your radar is seeing it or not (track might be generated by RWR, LINK16, FLIR...), your radar is just a contributor to this track system, the most reliable contributor. This means you can designate tracks, whether your radar is in silence, or whether your radar is looking to a different target and have not yet picked that track contact. In this scenario when you go TWS AUTO you don't change that setting again (well in most scenarios with AWACS or other C2 assets giving you track information). Since you can select any track presented in your radar scope, and the radar automatically be centered around it, even before it picks it. This is why a lot of people talks how bad the F18 radar works and how difficult is to manage not beeing HOTAS and requiring a lot of MFD presses. Now a different discussion is whether you actually need your radar on for the launch phase, and there is no public information on that so we should assume that you do need your radar on before launching a Amraam at a track. 5th gen fighter on the other hand can launch amraam that are supported by other assets so they can remain totally silent...

I do hope ED will have a look again to the promised MSI missing features, specially being able to designate off board tracks in TWS so the AUTO option makes any sense in terms of flow... right now is a total mess, needing to map the AUTO/Manual PBI option which as far as i know is not normally changed IRL.

Im amazed how well Razbam did on the eagle at release. If I’m not wrong the SE only had 2 rounds of bug fixes before everything blew up, still is totally flyable and able to deploy almost every weapon the SE actually uses. One of my favorite modules in DCS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently it was an error 2 patches ago that this option/GUI slipped to the game, the logic was still not ready. I think its the same still. Can you confirm @BIGNEWY or @NineLine ? EDIT: From other threads its seems this is actually working already https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?url=/topic/355379-bad-combination-of-ab-detents-settings-can-lead-to-abnormal-nozzles-vs-ab-operation/&share_tid=355379&share_fid=74365&share_type=t&link_source=app

The silence on the DTC progress feels already like the DC, long awaited feature that who knows how many years it will take... We have to enjoy the little updates every 5 months Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

The dynamic route tool is not ready on the current version... Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I dont think that is correct. F16 radar will in fact show jamming targets with the radar on silent mode (not transmitting). Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I will definetely give it a go (Necksaver i mean ofc) :) Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk