Cepheus76

Thank you for the tip, I'll try it and report back.

Quick question: According to the changelog, the issue with the line up lights should have been fixed with the June, 8th update. However, when I hopped into Bankler's Case 1 Training mission, the line up lights were still u/s. Does anyone else have still this issue?

I have the same issue, even after adjusting the system time.

One of the "Through the Inferno" missions by Deadlyfishes might be for you. It is available for a variety of maps and creates various tasks with different difficulties every time you start the mission proper. Also, if you want to improve you skills flying around the carrier, you might want to check out Bankler's Case 1 Recovery Trainer.

Glad that I could be of help. Happy hunting in the virtual skies!

I think that is because the Viper's flight control system is designed in such a way thst stick displacement doesn't command a discrete control surface displacement but a desired rate of change- that is, if I remember correctly.

Well, first of all, using the paddle switch in a dogfight is sort of cheating, but if you must, then I suggest the following: Can you use the paddle switch to disengage the autopilot and/ or nose wheel steering? If yes, then you have confirmation that your key bindings are working Do you use any joystick curves for the pitch axis, which might prevent you reaching full aft deflection of the stick? The g limit override can only be engaged when the stick is near full aft. Therefore, if you have a curve set, reset it to the default and test the switch again- the paddle switch should work then.

Just stumbled across this thread. I haven't done any night flying around the carrier for quite some time, but when I did it yesterday, I too found that the carrier is almost invisible. I do not run any mods, btw.

Could it be that in this particular case the target can't be picked up because of similar (ground)speeds, resulting in zero (or too small) dopplershift? Heatblur describes this type of blindspot in their Tomcat manual, page 225. [Edit: Typo- and Grammar-Correction]

Amen to that!

I encounter the same problem as you and even made a report about this a couple of months back, alas the team couldn't reproduce it (See the link below). Sometime later I attempted to designate a target with the radar when in active pause, and found that correct coordinates are generated. If I am not mistaken this is linked to another issue as to how the radar is modelled for compensating the aircraft's movement over the surface of the earth. Unfortunately I couldn't readily find the link for the thread where this issue is dicussed Designating Ground Target Track Changes TOO Coordinates.trk https://forum.dcs.world/topic/288252-designating-a-ground-target-track-changes-too-coordinates-for-jdams/?do=findComment&comment=4839285

The whole discussion is somewhat frivolous, however, I can't resist to open up a new angle: I am quite certain that the electrical power supply to the weapons system is interrupted while the gear is down to add another safety layer for aircraft handling on the ground, especially when arming and disarming ordnance. There is the hazard that removing/ inserting the arming pins of various weapons creates a sneak circuit of sufficient strength to trigger weapon release and it is my guess that having an interlock with the gear is part of managing that risk. Apart from that, not busting the gear limits after take off isn't all that difficult and can be even practiced by flying a few circuits around the ole cabbage patch.

You're right, I was shooting from the hip here instead of checking my references first. In any case, I looked into said reference to refresh my memory and was reminded that a misaligned platform results in a cumulative track error, which results in a position error (duh). By implication, if the system calculates an incorrect track, the difference between actual heading and the incorrect track should be perceived by the system as a large wind correction angle. As a result, the DIL is displaced in such an extreme manner.

INS also supplies attitude data.

Thanks a million for that hint, I didn't know that. Will test it right away. True, it is a bit of a bummer that the Auto mode isn't used by default. For myself I accepted the necessity to adhere to a fairly rigid workflow/ instrument scan when setting up my TWS to reduce the likelihood of forgetting to switch modes.

TWS-Auto is a real good option, but if you lost the track during maneuvering, e.g. turning cold, don't forget to cycle it to manual and back to auto before recommitting. Otherwise it is not possible to change antenna elevation, at least that is my experience.

Well, every INS will drift with time, otherwise a correction by GPS or any other means wouldn't be necessary.

If I remember correctly, vertical dilution of position with GPS can easily be off by several hundred feet. Unfortunately, I am not actively flying for the time being, so I can't check/ provide a real world example. Of course, differences between QNH and QNE can result in considerable differences between the indicated altitudes, however, I am willing to bet that there are always means to determine an accurate area pressure. Before using a derived altitude from GPS/ INS data, it would be much better to use radar altimeter inputs to compute a weapon delivery solution- but that is just my own thought, I don't know how it is done in real life.

I wouldn't think so, since the so called "vertical dilution of position", i.e. the difference between the aircraft's actual altitude and the altitude derived from GPS signals can be quite significant. In any case, GPS receivers can use pressure altitudes, i.e. the altitude above the 29.92 in/ hg plane, inputs and thus use earth itself as pseudo-satelitte to calculate a position. In other words, a pressure input is used already used for position computations, but why use a calculated altitude if a measured one is already available? INS inputs are equally unsuitable for altitude calculations, since the platform is subject to actual and apparent drift, which means that the INS fix loses accuary over time and requires periodical position updates. TL; DR: GPS/ INS derived altitudes are not really suitable for measuring altitudes. Also why should one use such a system if there is a altimeter-system readily available?

Just a quick question: If I understand the information in this thread correctly, there are stabilization issues with the expand modes, which have repercussions on targeting. Therefore, I wondered if it is good practice to use the autopilot in heading and altitude hold mode, when trying to use the radar for targeting?

That the flaps/ slats adjustment doesn't occur at random but is following some sort of schedule shouldn't need extra mentioning. In any case, NATOPS says that the given AoA values are approximately and that the best performance is obtained by flying the correct Mach number for a given configuration and altitude. The AoA range observed by you is less than a degree, so it is for me still a reasonable assumption that the AoA variations are a result of matching AoA to the wing's profile. On the other hand I would find it most peculiar if the whole point of altering the profile would be to maintain a specific AoA over the whole spectrum of conditions, masses, drag, etc. I rather assume that the aim of the exercise is to get the best wing profile for the current configuration and flight conditions and then fly the speed/ AoA required to get the desired performance.

As far as I can see, the Hornet's FCS frequently adjusts slats and flaps, thus altering the chordline with the obvious consequences on the angle of attack. Therefore, I am not surprised to see a range of AoA values for a given flight regime.

I would think that the chosen time frame shouldn't have an impact on Link 16 availability, since all the required components are, to my limited knowledge, installed on the aircrafts. GPS, on the other hand, relies on external components, i.e. the GPS satellites, which weren't available in the 80s. Therefore, it may be possible that the OP found a bug, since he reports that the Viper can see the Hornets, which implies that the Link 16 equipment is not deliberately disabled by choosing a certain date- But that are just my 2 Cents, of course.

Since the glideslope antenna is mounted aft of the island and above the flight deck, the electronic and the optical glideslopes should be parallel to each other and hence can't align. If I understand the procedure correctly, pilots are supposed to fly the ball on the last three quarters of a mile. At that distance, the discrepancy between the two glideslopes should be small enough (or better: the two glideslope beams are wide enough) to allow a smooth transition from one to the other.

Edit: Deleted the post, since it became irrelevant.