Hulkbust44

I concur, was just about to report this but didn't have the trk. Mobius708

There is a pitch down ground effect bug, but that only happens in close. It other thing would be having flaps set to full, but being above 250kts IAS. At these speeds the flaps retract as to preserve them. Slowing down through 250 will deploy the flaps again. You should never be near these speeds on approach, bit it's an idea. Are you flying onspeed AoA? Mobius708

The JDAMs I'm particularly are missing all of the JPF fixing functions. Mobius708 The JDAMs In particularly are missing all of the JPF fixing functions. Mobius708

EDIT: it appear that at some point the HSI cursor was removed in later versions. Don't know exactly when. It is quite a useful tool that's part of the base HSI. With this you can do things like TDC depress over a waypoint to designate it. Just speculation here, but I would think that TDC bump for scale would work just as with the SA format. Has ED mentioned this feature yet? I have very limited documentation that mentions the functions but nothing too in-depth(it seems pretty simple). Perhaps ED could find more information to be able to implement this? Should basically work like the F-16s HSD cursor allowing steer point selection. @BIGNEWYI know this is probably low priority, but I'll PM you my source.

Again, how do you know that the Hornet has pylons? Regardless, that 19.2 can't even be at max G.

Cool, so it's better engineered than the F-16 and therefore has a better DI at the same load. There you go. Still don't see the issue. Mobius708

Supposedly this has been brought up before, and there was a cruise video showing it this way Mobius708

Hornet TOO is correct(aside from a lot of missing features). Viper's equivalent is just not as sopsticated. The Hornet's built in HARM CLC integrates data from the ALR-67(RWR) as well as the ASPJ. With this, the processing time in TOO is greatly reduced compared to HAS for example as the system is being told what to expect. The fusion of these sensors is what allows 360 degree SP/PLBK threat identification, tracking, and engagement. Hornet doesn't have an HTS pod as it really doesn't need it for it's role.

Where are you getting DI=8? Isn't the 16's DI=50 2 sidewinder, 2 AMRAAM? Mobius708

I'm sorry, why not? Same relative fuel, same ordance load. Mobius708

Actually the HARM can know friend from foe, as well as the ALR-67 (modeled in DCS too: F in front of friendly emitters in TOO, and standard HAFU symbols on the EW). That should be taken into account for the priority of the emitters. The AE ship shouldn't have even been an option...

Best we've got for the Hornet is the GAO doc with the number 19.2°/s for sustained turn rate at sea level. This is with 60% fuel and DI of 50. We have a Viper EM turn performance at sea level chart somewhere around here. It's with the good engine also at 60% fuel DI=50. The Viper's max sustained turn rate with that is about 18.4-18.5°/s. I believe Wags posted it here so you should be able to find it, but I'm not going to risk a link here. Mobius708

As it should, but by how much is real question, it should be like less than a degree per second. The DCS data looks a lot better than people give it credit for.

You should check out the DICE countermeasure programing program. Mobius708

Huh? Mobius708

Is that actually measured at 7.5G? Because at that loading it's not possible for the Hornet to get to 7.5. Take that into account and it should be like 7.3-7.4 G. You'll probably get closer to your 19.2. Edit: don't forget that this is *sustained* turn rate. Kts should be around 360-375. Mobius708

I believe so. I think it's a part of the track ranking issue where tracks aren't being ranged by time to intercept, just distance. That however (the DCS way) is speculation on my part.

There are multiple data points, and it's sourced. We just need someone with access to the source to check it... It at least makes sense, a 7.5G capable Hornet with the EPEs of course turns well, better than 1:1 TWR on top of the alpha capability. I whole heartedly believe that a F/A-18C lot 20 EPE that is 7.5G capable has a higher sustained turn rate then an F-16C block 50. However, as a whole the F-16 is better in the 2C due to it's better TWR, acceleration, and STR via the corner plateau of the Viper's envelope. It's just that if both aircraft at co-alt only do level turns, the Hornet will edge out. Based on the data this is logical, and to me makes total sense of pilot testimonies in this context.

Actually, the DCS Hornet is quite lacking in high alpha capability. See pirouette, and pirouette entry. It should be much better. Based on the limited data available with both aircraft at 60% fuel, DI=50 the Hornet has a slight higher (degree and a half or so) STR. Mobius708

As it should. Block 50 Viper is not a block 30 lmao. Mobius708

That point is that ED has it, you have it. It's part of the very limited documentation for the Hornet but it's what's there to check ED's work. Mobius708

The 742-100 is literally publicly available. You need the 150/C for ECCM and NCTR details, which you aren't going to get. And no, the ASPJ shouldn't always outright blank the radar, that's just illogical. The priority function is for the *filter*

Are you sure? That makes no sense as RWS in the Hornet is basically just TWS without limitations. The trackfiles are always being generated and as I understand it TWS HAFU and RWS TUC are exactly the same when L+S. The difference is scan centering and refresh rate. Of course, MSI is *supposed* to create a trackfile regardless of radar contribution. A missile launch would command AUTO scan centering anyway. Mobius708

Well, there are no waypoints in SEQ 2 or 3 to cycle through. You need to add them via SEQUFC - INS - waypoint number - enter. The sequence will appear at the bottom of HSI-DATA.

Oops, forgot to edit it. You are correct, basically all of the symbology is there and works, however the logic does not. Just look at all of the recent bug reports. Mobius708 Note that I didn't specify radar. Mobius708