MARLAN_

Is this something that is planned to be fixed in the near term (i.e. next update) Should we spend the time updating all of our liveries or wait?

The speed is how it is IRL, and its helpful to be fast because then you can use the TDC to adjust scale/azimuth/click the buttons,etc. However, very importantly is not everyone will have the same hardware, so there definitely should be configuration options.

If it matters, real F18 pilots always use CCRP even for dive bombing as it allows for more accurate and consistent results.

Couldn't you use curves & saturation to achieve this? I haven't played with it a ton though so maybe not. Assuming you can though, this bug then means if you reduce the saturation to correct the radar attack as desired then the SA speed will be even more of a snail's pace. Hopefully ED can fix this bug.

Yes, to fully reset your radar do: BST (boresight), select GACQ, AIM-7 then AIM-120, (or desired weapon) The AIM-7 step was added to get around a bug, may not be needed anymore but I didn't test. This is also what they do IRL as weird as it may sound.

The purpose of RSET is to reinitialize the mode, not specifically to remove designations.

It should step for example from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 and then back to 1, however sometimes it will skip spots, e.g. step from 1 to 4 trackfilestepping.trk

Per the title, trying to use the undesignate switch to step between track files requires 2 presses instead of 1 to step away from the rank 1 trackfile. trackfilestepping.trk

That is no bug then. It's okay to have an L&S on friendlies, just don't master arm and shoot them haha. (For example, IRL standard practice is to STT during a rendezvous.

Trackfiles should rank based on TTG, see the FRM. In this image, the friendly is correctly the lowest priority, however the nearest hostile (traveling at mach 0.6) is marked as the #1 track file, it should be #2 because the hostile right behind is going mach 2 and has a lower TTG (~55 seconds vs. ~35 seconds TTG per the HUD)

If I understand what you're saying then it is intentional/correct, note that a L&S (launch & steering) is not a lock, it is just a designation -- unless you mean TWS is always forcing you into STT, then that would definitely be a bug. I did some testing, seems fine to me. It automatically (correctly) assigns a L&S, but it is not going into STT. Is it going into STT for you? A short trackfile would be helpful here.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine - Why was this moved to Wish List with no comment? The TDC should absolutely not have different speeds and this is a bug.

Thank you for fixing the RDR ATTK page TDC slew page, it is SO much more usable. However, this change did not affect the SA page, which is also very important to control e.g. scale. It will also be weird to have different speeds, especially when setting TDC speed curves/etc. Hopefully the SA TDC slew speed can also be fixed.

I have frequently seen this before, just haven't noticed a consistent way to reproduce so I haven't made a report/track but just saying I have also seen this bug.

Certainly can, why should it not? It is just using last known intercept when it loses radar support. It would almost never be practically useful for any manuevering targets.

Scared me the first time it happened, was getting ready to eject... Happens to a lot of people in my group as well.

Yes, the F-18 can do it currently in DCS using aging, what I meant was that when MSI is implemented aging won't be required either, you could just designate an offboard track and shoot (this doesn't make it smart to do though, as mentioned the missile will have a nearly 0% Pk)

I am unaware of how exactly the F-16 works or what capability it specifically has in regards to track files, but this isn't a limitation of the AMRAAM - the F-18 certainly can do this IRL and whenever ED properly implements MSI in the DCS F-18 it could do this without needing to turn before the track file expires (current implementation). The AMRAAM here is simply guiding on the last known intercept without radar support. However, as seen in the track, the AMRAAM expends an enormous amount of its energy making that turn (a 130 degree turn), additionally, is not supported by radar so it is only guiding on a last known intercept. If the target maneuvers at all the Pk of such as shot is approaching 0%. The intercept is only achieved here because it is a close range shot (10nm) and the target does not react at all (and even with all that, the missile was almost out of energy)

It would also be nice if DCS had the fuel baskets deployed before getting to the pre-contact position as this is how its done IRL.

If you're curious, you can find the real information on how it works here: [PUBLIC RELEASE DISTRO A] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN33396-ATP_3-52.4-000-WEB-1.pdf - also look up P-877 for the Navy/AIC side of it (also public release) I agree though, the current AWACS comm is ridiculous, its only "saving grace" is the BRAA spam is telepathic so not everyone hears it, it would be 10x worse if the current system wasn't telepathic. Luckily most of AIC/ABM comm is public release, so there's no blockers for knowledge, ED just needs to improve it when they have allocate resources to that. It's one of those things that would be super nice to have, even the human controllers often would rather fly, so plenty of missions go without control. For your information: > prioritise calls based on the situation (if a bogey turns hot on you or comes within a set distance) This is real, typically the AIC/ABM will just say something like "Bear, Single group, maneuver hot" but it depends on the situation. > (not sure if realistic) give contacts an identifier so you know which contact they're talking about Yes, this is realistic, groups are given labels, e.g. `single group`, or `north group`, or `lead group` (see the docs for all of the naming) > let you know when a contact disappears or is killed They would say either `faded` or `vanished` depending if there was weapons correlation or not. > only bug you when the situation changes or you request an update This is more of a complicated answer, but yes they will minimize comms as your proceed on your timeline and get closer unless its an important call (e.g. threat, cross court, untargeted, merge, etc.)

Have you aligned your helmet?

Realistic carrier cyclic ops involves turning into the wind prior to launch, so there will always be a carrier turn in a mission while people are on deck starting up/arming. This bug is a major annoyance for carrier operations.

Could definitely just be this

I take back my previous, I did a bunch of dogfights the other day, and while I can't definitively point to anything objectively since I don't have previous version test reports (and CBA to revert my version to create them), it does feel to both me and the guy I was dogfighting with that something is different in the F-18. Possibly better G Onset is my best guess.