Hulkbust44

It is implemented, we don't have anything specific about it's parameters from ED though. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

Cycling MC 2 to OFF and back should force a stores rescan. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

No, you hold TDC depress, slew over the track, then release. Slave on the right should be boxed. The FLIR hexagon is bugged and will not follow a track without radar contribution... Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

Yes, TDC depress will designate any MSI trackfile. To slave the FLIR you should TDC depress over a blank space, slew over the track, then release. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

Same here, SCS to the AZ/EL will drop it just fine though Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

This is one of those things I was surprised to see because I have not found one reference for it. It would work off in the RWR and ASPJ working to correlate emitter AZ/EL. I know for sure there are 4 priority trackfiles the EW system builds and can be MSI correlated. Another example is that the dashed threat rings should become solid when that emitter is located in a correlated ALR-67 trackfile. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

So you’re saying the donut was not orange? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Accidentally came across this. No radar trackfiles, slewed TDC on AZ/EL with no HAFUs displayed, but PPLI TUC data populated. Through_The_Inferno_PG_v3.0.9-20231013-171242.trk

Per previous patch notes: I for sure have never seen this behavior with a solid line at any point. The segmented line when there is a designation is common, but does not exist for when the A/AFLIR is in track. I just tested these situations, including launching a Sparrow at a target and there was no change. It's a MP trk. but hopefully short enough. I viewed the behavior from user tornado's jet via live stream while performing the above actions. p.s. even with the FLIR in it's own STT, if L+S is not deselected, the FLIR will for some reason drop track when the radar does. (uncommanded) 4YA_Mar_PVE2_V2.42[04_MAY_OVC_RAIN]-20231011-001845.trk

In general the performance of the radar is lacking, especially the A/G radar and "SAR". The processing systems of the -73 are much better, and it has integration (sensor fusion) with the EW suite. I'd have to really dig to find more, there is very little on the -73. Hell, there's *maybe* 3 pictures of it I've seen. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

If you do not use L16, JHMCS, ATFLIR and just use time period weapons, you get the same thing. (Yes it still had datalink) Take a look at this, there's much more re here than we have in our "modern" model. The big things of the engines and radar perform the same as our DCS aircraft right now. If you had a mission editor way to disable L16, JHMCS, and ATFLIR, what else would you want? You can already limit weapons and GPS. There are basically no noticeable hardware changes with the exception of the IFEI (many got with the block upgrade) and the EW panel in front of the stick. Our DCS model is a bare bones "A" with three extra toys. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

Definitely a core issue when switching aircraft. I've seen Jester's face on the AMPCD quite a few times, even without touching a Tomcat. Recently I've seen the last MFD image I've recorded from the F-15E. No mods.

Certainly wouldn’t “fit” but okay. Remember that our current “402s” perform as 400s so there wouldn’t be a performance difference. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In the context of our sim, it’s true. Take the TGP, MIDS, and advanced weapons, the rest of the Hornets systems are nowhere near what you think.What people’s don’t understand is that we do *not* currently have a “2005 USN F/A-18C” except for JHMCS in 02-03’ our current model at most matches an F/A-18A+ circa 01. The radar and engines are different by name, but in DCS they have the performance of that years A+ Hornets. There are a lot of under the hood system changes, none of which matter or would be noticeable to the DCS population. If an A was built to the standards of our current DCS Hornet model, there would really be nothing but cosmetic differences. Who’s going to notice that flight logic changed in OFP 10.7 in the 90s? That’s not even reflected in our current model. Our DCS Hornet with the option to remove datalink, JHMCS, and their associated formats from view would more than suffice. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Of all things, weapons weren’t part of the conversation, that’s easy. Also, everything you mentioned except JHMCS is pre 01’ for sure. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you put the oldest operational Hornets in there, the results would still be the same. What you want never existed.

M is manual entry

Why would you? The fallacy of a balanced public PvP game? There's no point. Even with the first production Hornets, they would be completely "overpowered" in their "proper" timeframe. all the cold war servers with the Hornet available are PvE, why would you care if the random guy you're not even talking to is using DL? It's his loss. Neither Hornet version would fit a scenario where you would need to restrict crap on public servers. If you want the proper flying experience, fly with a good group on their servers.

No, the CLC is only commanded on when the SMS identifies a HARM onboard.

Our Hornet is only a 2005 Charlie in name. Don't turn on datalink or CIT, do not enable JHMCS, don't turn to IFA. It's seriously not different enough. The radar, our "APG-73", is being modeled off of the APG-65 as it is. We have a -65 that's being called a -73. All of the core MC functions that were added with the C model, don't exist in DCS anyway... Save for datalink and the modern weapons, a full F/A-18A, even a fairly early model should be much more capable than our current DCS Hornet. If you want what we have now just stripped down, it's unrealistic. If this existed in DCS as you want it, you would jump in and notice the engine gauges, the AMPCD/HI is flat at the top, and the DDIs lack AZ/EL, MIDS, NET, and TGT data. That's really it. It probably doesn't apply to you, but there is a major misconception amongst the community that an early Hornet is like an early Viper, with it's radar and stores display really being the only digital elements. It's either a shrunken F-4, or overgrown F-5. The very first delivered Hornet's in 85' had more radar features than our DCS model did as of a few months ago. The "F-5 cockpit" version of the Hornet doesn't exist. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

FYI, the current implementation of our "C" model Hornet, except for the engines is a circa 02'-03' A+. The Hornet is a glass cockpit aircraft, a desert storm era Hornet with datalink, JHMCS and advanced weapons is what we have right now. Outside of cockpit cosmetics everything, but the most advanced systems will be the same. You still have walleye, SLAMs and slams with man in the loop datalink for example. This is not what you think it is. A fully simulated late 90's Hornet is way, way more than our DCS "Charlie" It would be great to have just for the idea, but there's no practical reason. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

I did just confirm that the TD box (Priority target symbol) is calculated and displayed by the CLC.

Because it's better, they are not the same. The Hornet has most of the HTS system's internal brains with its HARM CLC. (Navy voted for this over a dedicated HTS, even though there were designs for an HTS sensor built into the pylons) The HARM, ASPJ, and ALR-67 (RWR) build and contribute to trackfiles between each other. If the ASPJ or RWR picks up an emitter, it knows to send that data so the HARM already knows what to look for rather than "scanning." This is one of the reasons SP/ PULLBACK functions from any angle.

You can expand the SA, just not well (it's something ED manages to break and fix every other patch) And of course you should be able to input really any of the data via MIDS or TGT data

#2 I believe it should as the donors are sharing MSI trackfiles to be correlated. So the flight leader will receive the data from his flight to create MSI trackfiles for his jet, which will in turn be sent to the other flight. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk