Hulkbust44

Our question is what made you (not you, the dev team) model it the was it is? Show us *why* this is correct. Especially when it comes to the whole STT range fiasco. You vehemently defend the way it's modeled while it goes against all common sense and logic regarding the subject. You can't tell us where you sourced the information? All we got was "the team is happy the way it is." All we want is more communication.

There's no "upgrade" like the A-10, outside of the cockpit there is almost zero commonality between the Rhino and the legacy. Completely different aircraft. I would love an E/F model. Sure as hell ED won't do it, at minimum the first block Rhinos had identical avionics and software to the Legacies and the only thing that makes the current DCS legacy Hornet a Charlie is the engine performance. They call the radar the AN/APG-73, but it underperforms any radar ever put in a Hornet. ED has the data, they just struggle to make the connections between system without explicit descriptions. It would help if ED actually understood and bothered to model radar at all. In short, there would absolutely be demand for it, but with the current Charlie having half the systems of even an A+ I wouldn't trust ED to do it. If Heatblur did it, I would gladly pay hundreds for the exponential leap in capability. It would still have to be an early block as no one is going anywhere near AESA data.

Gear doors being ripped off is the source of the gear warning tone here. You accelerated too quickly after takeoff and didn't get the gear up before 250 kts.

Could we get any elaboration on that? Clearly the team had the data to model the page, all of the buttons and entries work, they just don't do anything. The same is more less true for TGT data which should simply be relaying MIDS info.

I believe you are confusing this with the SA friendly designation/STT/under attack lines. A fighter would always be contributing to tracks on the network. If DCS dosen't work that way, that explains a lot of the problems. It would be pointless to only show the threats donors see when they have them designated. That's what the attack status lines on the SA are for.

All expected behavior. The L+S Star for all tracks is just old logic, not wrong. Wrong for what we should have but correct by ED's documentation.

Yep it's correct and quite intuitive to most people. Up to zoom in, down to zoom out.

Are you sure that it's enabling all L16/MIDS functions? It should affect some of them.

Are we sure this is correct behavior that you must press D/L twice to access the MIDS UFC format? Why is L4 top level when it would be used the least?

TERM settings work for GBU-38s and you get a dynamic IZLAR for all JDAMs. The multi PPIZLAR is what's missing as well as the other release modes.

@BIGNEWY I would also love to know why this very important logic is described in the manual yet not implemented. The problem exits for EW fliters as a whole.

It's incorrect behavior, but it's intended...

Not to mention that it shouldn't even be on the HUD as it's friendly...

There is, the carrier at least that the camera cut to initially is there. The emitter on the HUD behind you is a surface ship. ED just has EW priority wrong but it's always been that way.

Working perfectly, the SP target was behind you as indicated by the box around the emitter. To step targets press the RAID/FLIR FOV/HARM sequence button. Edit: one went for the PLBK threat, one went to the selected SP threat.

Yes, that's the realistic behavior. The problem with the A/G radar is that without depress you slew the TDC, with depress you slew the designation cursor, with SCS you slew the acquisition cursor.

Dosen't work the way you think, it can't be made "just like the Maverick" as so many people claim. I made a recent post where I proposed a solution, it requires a few logic changes.

This is not entirely incorrect behavior as MIDS can be turned on/off via TACAN or L16. The systems are intertwined via the LVT and with just TACAN enabled you should still have some datalink functions.

Probably made it in, 40% of actual Hornet changes are not in the patchnotes whatsoever. Makes for a great easter egg hunt each update. @BIGNEWYis "Fixed: Slant range." in reference to the radar? Also, what exactly does "Fixed: Bullseye Coordinates Preload" mean? What waypoint is being set as the A/A-WP by default?

And FFS stop comparing it to the F-16 when it comes to FM performance. Only reason I hate the Viper is because of the people that worship it.

"Going by the Viper's real charts it shouldn't be out rated by a Hornet in this scenario." False. You need the documents for our up-engined Hornet with the 402s. A clean Hornet should slightly out rate the Viper in sustained level turn just as it does now. It's not enough of an advantage for aviators to train to in the real world, but it's there.

I had this issue when DCS randomly checked "game avionics mode"

What was your hit age out set to?

Yeah no bug. The radar is still rembering the track position as you passed by, it is extrapolating from last known data

The reason we can set the paveway II laser codes is because we can't tell the JTAC to change codes.