MARLAN_

I watched the video, it seems to me there are a handful of bugs/issues at work here. Bug 1) The Lock/Shoot Light Assembly Lock Indication should display a green light when: the radar is in track (STT) and not track memory. It appears after I tested that in DCS this light illuminates with only a L&S designation. Bug 2) The track appears to "ghost" and continue flying despite being destroyed, there is another bug report about this (trying to find it, I'll edit in later) Not a Bug) A L&S can be set on any track file, including offboard, and does not require radar contribution. While this MSI feature has not been fully realized in DCS yet, this particular part is not a bug. You could certainly have an L&S behind you if so designated although currently in DCS you require radar contribution so the track will drop after your aging expires (a different topic in of itself)

Your radar is not locked to anything. Note that "locked" means STT, not designating a L&S which would be called a designation. You should (real hornet) be able to designate any offboard track, although currently this does still look like a bug because ED hasn't yet implemented offboard track designation but it's "sort of" correct in the sense the functionality isn't necessarily wrong, just that it was achieved through a bug when it isn't intended in the sim yet. Possibly due to radar aging and designating that contact earlier, I'll check the track. Edit: Your track won't load for me, but it appears this is from a GS flight so it likely is much too long to watch anyway, try to reproduce the issue in as short of a track as possible.

Being able to review HUD & DDI would be enormously useful for debrief, so many questions can't be answered without knowing what they did, tracks would work in theory except for all of the problems.

It's a blessing that ED/DCS exist and they have the passion to create this sim for the hardcore audience. Despite all of the flaws we're really lucky it exists with all of the amazing experiences too. This thread makes no sense to me. If the simulation is "too simulation", I hear Battlefield's flight model is a lot easier to digest. Different flavors for everyone, that's the beauty of it.

Any news from ED on what the implementation of the LOST cue in DCS is? What is it supposed to do in DCS?

Just saw the post from Wags, this is great to hear, really excited for the next patch! Thanks for all the hard work.

A public bug tracker would do wonders for ED & the Community both since the community provides so much testing & bug reporting for ED.

Lately I've been noticing radar look-down has been absolutely atrocious since the past patch or two. If a bandit is even a few thousand feet below you they're invisible. Whether over water or land it doesn't matter.

It would be an extremely helpful tool for the private servers who do actually operate per NATOPS. Obviously it wouldn't have much merit in the public server environment but it doesn't need to, to be a great feature.

Hopefully this can get fixed soon! Fingers crossed for next patch.

Ah, no problem. I'm not familiar with the F-16 systems so I didn't catch the difference.

I'm asking for what specifically DCS implementation is, not the real world one, because currently LOST (and it is called LOST as far as the multiple SME's and documents I've seen call it, I'm curious what source you have that calls it "LOSE") in DCS is being displayed even when the missile still does retain enough kinematic energy, and battery life to intercept so therefore DCS must be implementing the LOST cue in a different way, since this is marked "correct as is".

@BIGNEWYor @NineLineany possibility that ED would be able to share with the community what the implementation of the LOST Cue in DCS is? It's not described in the current version of the DCS FA-18C Early Access Guide and it seems there is a disconnect between information online so the clarification would really help the community understand how to interpret this cue in the DCS environment. Thank you!

I'm not seeing any issue, although I'm on the latest OB, I've never noticed an issue with this in previous versions which is now the current stable. Note that "lock" very specifically means to be in STT, nothing else (there is no "soft lock" or "hard lock" it's a community misnomer). What most say is a a "soft lock" is just a designation (L&S) and the undesignate switch while certainly a little bit confusing, doesn't actually remove designations, it steps through them (If no L&S exists, create one on the priority track; if an L&S exists: step to the next priority track; if both L&S and DT2 exist: step between them.) Undesignate should return to search when actuated during STT, STT RAID, Spotlight, AACQ or ACM -- in all other modes (RWS, VS, TWS, TWS SCAN RAID) it should step through track files.

The DCS: F18 doesn't seem to be calculating the wind. The HSI A/C page always shows wind at 0, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are no wind calculations done at all.

@BIGNEWYReally great investigation by Beamscanner

Happened to my group as well, everyone was experiencing it. Sometimes aircraft bounce, sometimes the aircraft carrier does. Once you launch everything is fine.

I just really hope important issues with deck crew not accepting aircraft on catapults, or no DCS-way of causing the SC to create a specified wind over deck will come soon after the Briefing Room. I'd make bug reports but I don't know to reproduce it despite some kind of issue happening almost every single event I fly. I'd have to test in multiplayer with clients and not everyone wants to just bug test for free lol. Hopefully ED's testers can look into it eventually.

Information can be found that explains that the 120C is supported by transmissions from your radar. Information can be found (as mentioned above by Hulkbust) that explains you can designate basically any trackfile as an L&S. Information can be found that explains that an AMRAAM launched will steer to the L&S (launch & steering) (already obvious in the community) -> You don't require radar contribution to launch on a trackfile, if the missile is unsupported by your radar it will guide to the last known intercept until radar support is gained. It is not MADDOG because it has an initial target designation to guide to. You could in theory launch from the notch even, although your missile would be unsupported off the rail and have a likely a low Pk.

For sure! Although I would imagine it's probably balanced out by the fact the carrier could probably often be in a more advantageous and possible closer position than the field assuming combat operations.

Your required fuel reserve required for recovery on a carrier is higher than on the field, which is probably what they mean when they're talking about that. I'm not surprised that the F/A-18C in real life has more fuel, it's also the same in DCS, I've only tested F-16C vs. F/A-18C, but the F/A-18C has significantly more range & endurance than the F-16C.

We don't know what documentation is available to ED, and it is certainly more than just Distribution A (Public Release) otherwise nearly none of DCS would be able to be modeled, so it's hard to say. How MSI works can be found online, just depends if it is included in ED's library of special access or not. It would be really handy if ED was able to let us know what resources they do have available so the community would know what can or cannot be referenced (not posted) for use in DCS.

https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/551106084157390874/900352442468827156

It's called notching if I'm understanding what you guys are talking about. That said, the AIM-120C should not be as susceptible to the notch as much as it is in DCS. A lazy sort-of perpendicular flight path defeats missiles when it should be closer to 1-2 degrees of precision (RWR should not be precise enough for this) and still rarely work. Notching is not a thing for modern missiles like the AIM-120.