raus

@Jself did you use any mod of the lua files for the Parking brake? I am not seeing how to have the discrete steps you show in the video. I mean, from parked position, if I hit "CCW", it will automatically rotate, push, and get horizontal, while in your video, I see you are turning it like 45° CCW, and it does not get in until you push...

Just in case... download link in first post updated to the latest version

Hi, latest version should automatically update from the one linked in the first post. If the update it does not show up when launching, you can use the button "check for updates". Regarding the aircrafts... it works with any, as long as you're going on blue coalition. Probably will change that in the future, to add the possibility of flying red side, good point

@Jself those brake and gear mechanisms look interesting… would you mind sharing the 3D files?? I am just trying to work them out at the moment… did you also find a solution for the wing fold? thanks!!

Hey, @BIGNEWY, no problem at all. I fully understand and do not intend to put pressure on the end of EA. I appreciate the chance to fly an excellent bird earlier, and to contribute with feedback, for everybody's benefit in the long term My comments were on the shared perception that the Hornet went into back burner somehow silently. And that it is a pity, as long as it is so close to a release status. I think - and guess more people would share the feeling - it would even be ok to go out of EA just by fixing the remaining items I mentioned, even if the original plan for the EA covered more than that. But what I think would help around all this is a little more clear communication (or maybe it is just that I have missed something in the comms-clutter). So, if now the viper is getting the priority, stating what is the foreseen impact to Hornet timeline, would be a greatly appreciated sharing. No commitments, just sharing your current view. Maybe I am extrapolating my own feeling about the issue, and the rest of the community would go crazy with such an approach, don't know. If that's the case, just disregard.... but I needed to get it off my chest Best regards, and keep up with the great work!

So, I do not want to complain, and I am very happy with the Hornet we have... however, I wonder if it is going to receive the final push it needs to leave the EA state, or if it is now indefinitely in back burner, with the viper and Apache being the priorities (what would be a shame, IMHO, as it is just in need of some details to be "finished"). As I see it, we are still waiting for - Finishing the FM rework (ballooning, I am looking at you) - MSI rework (and, hopefully, ability to make L&S from MSI tracks) - Radar track duration not controlled by the aging of the bricks - ACLS and approach mode ATC (honestly, could live without these until after EA) - Radar/Jammer prioritization - LOFT modes for JDAM... (could also live wihout these until after EA) Of course, that is my humble opinion and expectation. I understand other priorities might make more sense to other people... just wanted to share my view on how little is remaining to leave EA in adecent state, and why is it so nerving seeing that it still remains at 95% BR

I eould love that…but it’s out of my reach at the moment. I know it is possible, as the kneeboard from Vaicom does exactly that… but I do not know how. But I will research it, for sure…just will take longer than other features

@whisky.actual check for an update... it should be at least improved

Hi, @whisky.actual . Yes, I am aware of that one, and it is irritating, to say the least. Still trying to figure out a better solution. At the moment, if the text you selected has more than one format, it will not work (like if there‘s one word in bold and another in italics). If you select chunks of code with the same font, color and format, you can still spply the formats to them, though

@whisky.actual you're right. Trying to replace the image produces an error. Thanks for the heads-up, it shouldn't be hard to trace and fix, so expect it fixed in the next update Regarding the timings, I went through a couple iterations, as it was a little complex. Right now, it goes as follows: VUL time or PUSH/TOT: 1.- In the coordination tab, assign the flights on the left pane 2.- Clicking the button for "Edit WPs flight#X" opens a pop-up window showing the flight plan of that flight 3.- In the pop-up window, select either PUSH/TOT or VUL Time 4.- Use the fields to select the initial and final times of the selected option 5.- Hit the close button in the pop-up window 6.- Once you have assigned the times for all the flights you want, hit the "Calculate" button in the left pane of the Coordination Tab 7.- Now the assigned times should show on the Coordination Card, and the TOT field of the Mission Datacard, for the assigned flights How to introduce the PUSH time, or modify a time in the flight plan displayed on the Mission Datacard - Let's assume you assigned a push time to a flight in the coordination card. I will not show in its flight plan (the flight plan is retrieved from the .miz). You can, still modify it: go to the mission data card tab, click in the TOS field for the intended waypoint (e.g. the PUSH point). You can manually add the time in the TOS field, and the program will adjust the timing of the waypoints before it. Now, some things to take into account: - If the assigned time is impossible to reach, while taking off at the assigned time, a message will pop-up, and the takeoff time will be colored red (only as a warning, it will print normally on the exported datacard) - If the timing is valid, the takeoff time will be green (only in this preview) - The previous waypoints TOS will be adjusted so that the same ground speed as before is kept - This can only be done to one waypoint (we usually use it for the PUSH) I hope this helps clarifying

@whisky.actual I have done a couple quick tests, and I am not seeing that error happening. Could you try to completely close the program and any app having access to its folder, and try again? By the way, the process to use a custom patch should be: 1.- Use the two text fields to fill in your squadron name 2.- Click on the placeholder image, and select the image you'd like to use 3.- Select the radio button to use the custom Text+Image on the datacards

Let me have a look and come back. Initially, sounds like the image you‘re trying to add is in use by another application…but I‘ll check it. It‘s been a long time and might have been modified in any update…

Sorry for bumping, but... @Blue73 how's the status of the project? Would love seeing where you have reached And, of course, if there are still any plans for releasing files, that would be helpfult for those of us starting similar projects. But first things first, I'd like to see the foreseeable awesome outcome of your efforts. BR

Thank you, @whisky.actual, I am glad that it serves people!! I have had a lot of support from the community to develop and improve it, so I am very happy to see other people find it useful!! I am planning to prepare a couple videos showing the usage with DCS: Liberation, to create all the cards for a package, so stay tuned! BR

Good to know about that @Foka. However, does not seem to be the case as: a) We do have MIDS, just goes away for periods of ~10s every now and then b) Last time I experienced it I was on a pure AA mission, and the only coordinates I might have entered were Bullseye's, and not using grid for that, just plain old waypoint creation and DDMM.MMMM coordinates input

Could not find any reference to this, so sorry if I did not search properly... When flying online, specially on Liberation campaigns, we (me and my fellow online sq. aviators) are experiencing this: all of a sudden, the MIDS contacts disappear from radar and SA page, and they reappear maybe 10s later. It is very annoying, an we have tried to debug the source cause, but apparently no reason for it: - The AWACS is quite close to our flights - Other platforms (F-16) are not experiencing it, while it happens for all F/A-18Cs on scene - It happens at the same time for everybody - It is recurrent during the mission, like happening every couple minutes or so It looks like if the AWACS link was lost when it enters a turn, or something like that, although I understand it does not make any sense, furthermore when it is not the case for the vipers flying with us in the same mission. However, I found it odd not having read about it here, when it is happening to use every time since a couple months, at least. Just feel free to share if you know the cause, the solution, or just want to express your frustration at it Actually, I'd love to read that it is a well-known bug with a scheduled fix (or, at least WiP), and that I failed miserably to find info on the forums

New version available, v1.3.4 v1.3.4 Changelog: [Fix]:Al Dhafra UHF frequency 250.500 instead of 251.100 [Fix]: Bug when recalling a .5Js file, causing the wrong Waypoint coordinates format to be applied [Feature]:PUSH/TOT and VUL times applied in Coordination Tab, get updated in the TOT window of Mission Datacard [Feature]:Cyprus airfields added [Feature]:Marianas airfields added, and Mariana Islands theater support [Feature]:Human flights from Liberation missions, where a custom flight name has been added, will display those names in every field [Feature]:Added a Font selector on Notes1 Tab [Feature]:Added a Paste button on Notes1 Tab [Feature]:Default export name for Mission Datacard includes the Flight Name, to ease the creation of Package datacards [Change]:Notes2 page is now a full size image export [Change]:Checking "use standard 5Js frequencies" will change Base Ops (Radio1, ch.1) to 251.000 [Change]:GV5Js frame deleted from Navcards, to improve readability. Using original Combatwombat cards and 476th VFG cards" [Change]:Flight name field in Coordination card expanded [Change]:NVG filters changed to improve blending with the base card [Known limitations]: In Notes1, when changing text format, all text selected must have the same format. If there are different formats (bold, italic) applied, it has to be done in steps In Coordination Card, it is neccessary to click "Calculate" before exporting the card. Also, the names of the flights cannot be edited afterwards (or Generate must be hit again)

IIRC, they need to know the aircraft type to adjust the tension of the arrestor cables accordingly.

@Pieterras thanks for the clarification, very instructive Actually, after posting I was doing some more practice and reading, and realized on CASE III there was aball call, and it should not be present in other cases, as you explained... so all fine. I stand corrected, and will enjoy applying more realistic procedures Thanks a lot!

Yeah, maybe I did not explain myself. In my first post, that's the dialog I would expect. However, when flying towards the carrier, after the "Marking mom" call, and later the "See you at ten" one, hen I do the CASE I pattern, and fly into the groove, the LSO is not automatically contacting me, so the dialog is only: - 402: 402, Hornet Ball, 4.1 - LSO: Roger ball So I am missing the "402, 3/4nm, Call the Ball" communication from the LSO, and I am not sure if it is due to my mistake in comms, missing something, or if it is not implemented

I am not sure about the real procedure, but have been readin a bit, and I understood the ball call procedure is initiated from the carrier, isn't it? Like: - LSO: 402, 3/4 mile, Call the ball - 402: 402, Ball (Clara), 4.1 - LSO: Roger ball At the moment, if I am not doing something terribly wrong, it's the player initiating the comm. If wrong, please let me know, what am I missing Thanks!!

Hi! Could not find this one, but apologies, anyway, if it was already mentioned, or scheduled... As far as I have read, the signal to the catapult personal to launch in night conditions, should be turning the external lights on, rather than the salute. Could we have it like that? I think the F-14 already does So... - Day: salute to be launched - Night: turn external lights on to be launched

OK, problem solved... although not sure which one of the solutions worked - I did recable the GPU, to take 2 independent rails from the PSU - I did push voltage o the processor up a notch, just to make sure it was not undervolting, because of the default OC applied by the Mobo SW I did tests and have no crashes again. I suspect it was the GPU, as even without applying the new OC profile to the processor, it does not crash. Anyway, thanks for the support and suggestions, @Flappie

I'd rather finish the options on existing weapons than having added new ones... but can't really tell if it was the same dev. team or not. Would appreciate an official statement, also. Thx