Hulkbust44

If the TDC slewed away at an obscene rate, did you set TDC priority to the HUD? Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

How so? I know even mover said he thinks a EPE Hornet should out- power a Viper. The 16 gets it's power from blower so the mil acceleration sounds right. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Yeah that range is atrociously short. In DCS right now in HPRF you get 48nm max for a Fighter. LACQ is supposed to see out to 40nm and only uses MPRF. Maximum range for MPRF in DCS is some 26nm. What we're seeing here, picking up a flanker only at 15nm is clearly wrong. Only time the LACQ range was ever really correct was when the overall radar was too powerful. HPRF was seeing too far, but MPRF was just about right. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Not yet, ED hasn't given us the ability to designate ANY off-board targets yet... Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

There's no FLIR LOS cue in DCS. What you'd see on the HUD is a target designation. The designation gets updated each time the FLIR goes into a track. I know for sure the the FLIR LOS box is missing on the HMD, not sure about the HUD. Most likely there is as you have that feature in A/A with the small x. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

94'? Last I checked a few years ago it was 1986, was there an unannounced change? Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I hope they can fix the Hornet this year. F-16 in BVR should be nothing by comparison... Also in A/A if you are pressing on the DDIs you're doing it wrong. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

If ED decides to fix our Hornet the F-16 is cannon fodder by comparison. Nothing it can do in A/A. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

This is just not true, with any kind of similar A/A the 16 ways lags behind, it is a pig. It is barely more efficient clean, but In afterburner the Hornet is litterly twice as efficient. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Hornet SA is leaps and bounds better, most things are just broken in DCS unfortunately. It would be like comparing a flip phone to a modern smartphone. Let me say this, there is a larger gap from Hornet to Viper than there is from Hornet to F-35. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It shouldn't be like this either, outside of acceleration a bit, the Hornet should have every advantage. It reall sucks in DCS right now, even just the bugs. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk No, the range Mac Raero of a 120 is some 60nm, the radar should be around 30nm. The Hornet ASPJ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RADAR, where did this myth come from? Shouldn't be silenced either. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I don't see the issue with IFF whatsoever. They could at least get the CP side functional. For AI it can be real simple, you set only returns from the set code be to displayed on the AZ/EL. Nothing wrong with that. Even just general mode 4 can be done just fine. We know there's codes, we know how they are displayed in the aircraft, what an interrogation looks like, we know that the codes can automatically be switched at set times or geo locations. Non of the IRL backend system stuff matters for this. Say we know that RWS sub mode 2 allows for better detection of helicopters, increasing detection range by 15nm. That can be stimulated right? Nothing about how the radar gets that result matters. It's still insane to me that we know much much more about the capabilites of the F-35s sensor fusion than a 2005 Hornet Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Why would INS position data have any effect on CCIP calculations? Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Even It's most simplest implementation would be fine. Just let us fire the HARM when the VV is not on the ASL to "simulate" EOM. In theory this should be a very simple task. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I wish

Very much so. The Hornet has longer range and greater azumoth, I believe it tracks more targets, and has much better logic overall. No need to manually create system trackifles or whatever. 18 is slightly better as of now in DCS, but it should be no competition in A/A really.

Avionics are better, weapons are better (aside from 105s), fuel efficiency is better, faster 98% of the time, better FLIR, internal jammer, much better SA, better HOTAS, etc. (much better, fight me) Overall in DCS the Hornet is quite a bit better, but once the Hornet is complete, the F-16 will feel absolutely useless by comparison. It's like no competition outside of DEAD. For A/G combat, the 16 is slower, more sluggish, lacks SA, short on station time, lacks a G-limiter etc. Once the Hornet is fixed and MSI sensor fusion works, the F/A-18 has capabilities the F-16 couldn't even dream of. For one, as standard since 99', the Datalink, RWR, ASPJ, RADAR, ATFLIR, CIT (IFF), and HARM all work to together to find, track, and identify air targets. MIG notches you at 40nm? Only thing you see different is the radar contribution circle on he HAFU flash and disappear. The HAFU as a whole would still be the L+S tracked by datalink and the FLIR. That's to be later though. Best we can do in DCS is slave the FLIR to a datalink track. Some stuff works decently with Angle Only Tracks for Jamming tracks. The way I see it. 16 does basically nothing better and is quite a shocking disappointment. There isn't even a map....

There should be, it's called bump accusation where SCS bump to the radar agin will reject the previous target for a couple seconds while it looks for something else. No implemented yet.

The FRIEND option just determines whether friendly emitters are displayed as one of the SAs 4 EW triangles. To filter out friendly contacts would be the knob on the RWR panel. (Dosen't work yet)

Well the FC3 F-15C should have the best radar period. There's no "pay to win"

Realistically the F-16 is useless without two fuel tanks. Buddy of mine that's a Viper crew chief said they're practically welded to the wings. So an F-16 is only ever going to have 2 pylons for A/G.

The AMU functionality was stated to be a core development.

The thing is, it's not even the major bugs.

"When development resources allow" This either means after the F-16, or two weeks [emoji769].

Just as the title says. As you will see in the trk, boxing LTWS allows HAFU symbology to be displayed for a radar only MSI trackfile. However, LTWS latent being the key word, is actually supposed to be the filter that is applied when the option is boxed. "Selection of the LTWS option (LTWS boxed) causes HAFU symbology associated with radar only MSI trackfiles not to be displayed. This allows for better viewing of the radar raw hits on the RWS display" -742-100 With this, LTWS should not initialize boxed. @BIGNEWY I will PM you the full page. Edit: PM sent. Important note, CONFIG/IDENT 92A has a completely different LTWS function where target processing is changed. I believe this is where the initial confusion/DCS implementation stems from. LTWS.trk