DCS: F/A-18C

[Boomer 1,619]

Thanks for the update.

[Boomer 1,619]

Dear Gawd when can I get this magnificent product on ER...?

I've been flying ED jets since Flanker circa 1995...I pray Matt would invite me to help test...I want to to do whatever I can to help expedite release.

[Phantom88 3,284]

***mini update***

Now that the team is back from holiday, work resumes on the Hornet. One of the big areas that you can see visible results is the EW page. Attached are a couple WIP images of the main display page and the manual (MAN) programing page.

I’ll do a full academic video on this later, but in a nutshell, the bypass mode allows single release of chaff and flare from the countermeasures dispense switch on the throttles and when in the ON mode, it can use semi-automatic (S/A), automatic (AUTO), and manual (MAN) modes. When set to MAN mode, the ARM PB brings up the programming edit page that allows you to create and save dispense programs. It's a very easy to use system.

You may also notice the O1 and O2 counts, these are for GEN-X expendables.

On the radar front, much of the work is on the locking of targets in STT and LTWS modes. This is also critical for the ACM modes.

Other focused work continues on the flight model / FCS, bombing HUD, INS, and audio.

A small thing, but we also adjusted the DDIs and MPCD to not be smudgy messes.

Thanks,
Matt “Wags” Wagner
Senior Producer, Eagles Dynamics SA

https://s20.postimg.org/kq5vvs5e5/image

 

[Phantom88 3,284]

***mini update***

"A little update today that shows some improvements to the cockpit lighting.

Mk-84 and AIM-9L also integrated in the Hornet this week."

 

[Boomer 1,619]

The "office" looks bloody awesome...pre-purchased!

[Boomer 1,619]

Btw I thought the Hornet normally carries mk83s rather than mk84s

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

22 hours ago, Boomer said:

Btw I thought the Hornet normally carries mk83s rather than mk84s

It is capable of employing both, with the MK-82 being highly in favor where precision strikes with limited collateral damage are desired - which we see a lot of these days.

Best wishes.

[ZLA Steve 370]

1 hour ago, DaveCT2003 said:

...the MK-82 being highly in favor where precision strikes with limited collateral damage are desired

No one is using Mk-82's for precision bombing. You are confusing it with the GBU-38. 

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

4 minutes ago, ZLA Steve said:

No one is using Mk-82's for precision bombing. You are confusing it with the GBU-38. 

Yeah, I was of course referring to the underlying munitions, but I'm happy I have you an opportunity to point out that you know more than others.  Sweet Lord, we have enough people like that around here.

Best wishes.

 

 

[Boomer 1,619]

Having flown Falcon BMS for a decade I am VERY familair with airborne munitions of all kinds.

Though stand off weapons are safer for the pilot/platform, I still prefer old school getting down in their chill with unguided munitions.

[ZLA Steve 370]

20 hours ago, DaveCT2003 said:

Yeah, I was of course referring to the underlying munitions, but I'm happy I have you an opportunity to point out that you know more than others.  Sweet Lord, we have enough people like that around here.

It amuses me that you of all people are calling me out for being pedantic about something in this forum. 

 Never change, Dave. Never change...

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

6 hours ago, ZLA Steve said:

It amuses me that you of all people are calling me out for being pedantic about something in this forum. 

 Never change, Dave. Never change...

Well Steve, then I'm happy to have provided you with the opportunity for amusement as well.  But please don't write as if you know me.

I don't care that you pounced on a technical error of mine - even though I'm sure you knew what I was referring to and that I was very likely aware of it myself by what I wrote, right?  Right.  I didn't respond in kind when you failed to include 4 or 5 other types/variants, I assumed you were aware of them and didn't include them for the sake of brevity.

I do my best to write to the target audience or individual - and in this case he was asking about the MK-82, and I choose not to take it further. But from your perspective it was an oversight or error, and it doesn't matter to me one bit that you cited it as such.  But I take exception to how you chose to do it.  I made a decision how to word my post and what information to include, and you made a decision about how you replied. I'll own what I decision brought about, and if you had intended to do the same then I doubt we'd be having this conversation, right?

I certainly admit to leaning to the right where accuracy of technical information is concerned (with the understanding that one can't write a white paper for every topic), but I also strive to ensure that my replies on technical matters aren't written to intentionally offend, nor are they written to be boastful or take pleasure in finding an error or omission as yours clearly was.

Steve, you sound like a better person than one of those in our community who look for posts which they can insult someone while puffing their chest out. If you are, then just consider what I originally said. 

If you want to continue this (I sincerely hope not) then I respectfully suggest we use Private Message.

 

Best wishes.

 

 

[Boomer 1,619]

23 hours ago, Boomer said:

Having flown Falcon BMS for a decade I am VERY familair with airborne munitions of all kinds.

Though stand off weapons are safer for the pilot/platform, I still prefer old school getting down in their chill with unguided munitions.

Right, back on topic.

[ZLA Steve 370]

13 hours ago, DaveCT2003 said:

...please don't write as if you know me. 

It appears you read deeper into this than expected, and that's fine. Though I have not been the most vocal, I've read and absorbed the content on the Avsim forums for a very long time, so forgive me if certain members feel more familiar than they actually are.

Despite that, I apologize if you took offense. I wasn't trying to compare resumes with you, just simply making a correction in case someone who is new to the place wanders in, since this is a subforum dedicated specifically to simulating military aircraft operations - where detail matters significantly in the real world. 

So as Boomer says above. Back on topic. 

 

 

 

[Phantom88 3,284]

***mini update*** 

“

Hornet Navigation System Update

A very important aspect of creating a realistic navigation systems is accounting for magnetic variation. Over the past week, the team has been implementing this. We now have a Magnetic Azimuth Detector (MAD)and Magnetic Variation implemented as part of the Mission Computer (MC) 1 code. Note that the MAD is actually a separate system that provides data to the Air Data Computer (ADC), which in turns sends the data to the MC. For the two Mission Computers, we are essentially creating them virtually. This allows us more accuracy, particularly in regards to failures.

This will now allow proper magnetic heading differences (true heading vs magnetic heading and will be available on the HSI. 

Realistic magnetic and true heading computations for DG/SLAVE/COMP INS are also in progress.

This is all in parallel to getting the INS Waypoint systems up and running, a crucial item of the Early Access release.

Thanks,
Matt “Wags” Wagner
Eagle Dynamics, Senior Producer”