arteedecco

@Rshackleford, interesting. F/A-18C early release at least has Auto, CCIP, and Manual. Auto is pretty much CCRP since you mark a target and then fly to it while holding down “pickle” until the system releases automatically. Can try that to see if it gives “X” or not, but the trouble I see there is designating target in advance. Of course as the release version approaches I believe we get more advanced features and targeting will have more robust options like TGP, which would allow for easier stand off target designation at range. So Auto and Man for high drag.

@fencible did about 10 runs trying it all and cannot get a combination where I get reticle “+” without “X”. Only way I’ve found is traditional bombing run. I even did a drop at Mach 1+ to see if prodigious speed would get me the reticle, but nope. Below about 2,500 AGL unless I’m in a 30 degree nose down or more I never get LA reticle without the “X”.

@fencible Great! Thanks for the tips. Yeah, that makes sense they didn't have (?)/use CCIP type delivery back in Veitnam. I haven't messed w/ the Manual bombsight yet. The question still remains... is the frag area "X" warning on the HUD still valid for Snakes when in CCIP? I'll try faster passes with higher velocity vector (aka, velocity vector beyond target) and fly reticle onto target as opposed to the traditional method for FF delivery you mentioned (coming from under target like I'm used to). Thanks for those tips. Gives me some good things to try! o7

First... Hornet = Pure joy. It is just awesome. Congrats to the whole team. I've been just thrilled flying it since the release. THANK YOU! Incredible detail and the sounds... love it. Okay, on topic. I've also been trying to successfully implement the SnakeEye via CCIP and Auto and am also a bit baffled by the appropriate profile to fly. Watching the legacy footage from drops in Vietnam it looks like it's a pretty low, fast, shallow (or even flat?) profile meant to give the pilot plenty of time to escape the frag envelope. That said in the F/A-18C early release I'm only getting the reticle at the very last moment while in a steep. nose low attitude (relative to the proximity of the dirt). In essence it seems like the computer is calculating based on FF despite RET design of the SnakEye munition. I can successfully drop using Auto from a level, low, and speedy profile, but I've got the big "X" blaring on the HUD the whole time and no matter what I do I can't seem to get a profile where that is gone. I guess with Auto I could fly higher, but what alt AGL is that? [EDIT]I assumed you should be able to drop from 750 - 1000 AGL (or lower) and 450-500 knots? e.g. https://youtu.be/P8B_uDCxhM0?t=3m19s[/EDIT] I also tried a traditional steep, moderate-high altitude profile using CCIP and it works, with you getting sufficient time to see the reticle before having to come OFF and egress. So maybe my understanding of usage is wrong... or perhaps the system is still being tweaked since we're in early release. Anyhow... would love to get a vid on proper usage of the SnakeEye and some description of the assumed profiles and usages. Thanks for all the amazing content and vids already published. Just an amazing release and module. Can't say enough. Cheers!!!

I just tried making a mission in ME last night, multiplayer, using Client assignment for aircraft (not Player) and unlimited ammunition enforced. I was using high drag bombs on abandoned runway. Dropped the full salvo... bombs weren't replaced on rails. Went, landed at nearby airport I had assigned to same coalition, rearmed and refueled via ground crew. Took off, dropped another salvo of bombs... on egress I used F3 view and noticed I had a bunch of bombs on the rails despite a bunch of explosions evidently from the salvo I'd just released. Figured it was working now for some reason, so I circled for another pass... pickled ... nada... nothing, no bombs. Tried multiple different passes in CCIP just like the first couple successful drops, nothing. I'm assuming this still has to be fixed based on that. And yeah I'm using the latest open beta build all up-to-date. (Awesome work on the module. It's really coming along. I think the Viggen is the most intensely modeled one I've tried yet outside of the A-10C (and probably BlackShark). Amazing detail on the systems.) :thumbup:

I believe this is an overstatement of the available information. The 3rd Party developing the F18 Super Hornet (Coretex) have already said they will do the "best they can", which implies there will be holes. Perhaps a better way of stating this is that you enjoyed their simulation a lot and found it to be a good simulation. However (and I could be wrong) I doubt that you have flown an F22 in RL, so I don't think you can really say that the previous simulations of the F22 were "very accurate". It has been brought up many times and in different threads that they (ED) won't be chasing after the latest gen of aircraft (Gen 5) due to the lack of publicly available data / information / detail and because most of the intricacies of those aircraft are in their very top secret avionics suites. One other thing that has been pointed out is that an F22 would greatly unbalance the SIM. Not trying to be a party pooper and I certainly understand your desire. And hey! It is okay to make requests!

Lol! Thanks... :thumbup: Tenses... easy to mix up, big impact. blarg.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fa2-sea-harrier/ FA2 Sea Harrier is apparently ASRAAM and ALARM capable.

I started out in DCS at A-10C, never having flown the KA-50. During that Spring Sale, I bought all the modules including BS2 and have finally gutted up to learning the thing. I really love the startup sequences of A-10C and KA-50... getting all the systems ready and operating, engines whirring,etc. It has been really neat to learn the new airframe and how to actually land / takeoff vertically. I even managed to have a really nice approach and landing to a FARP recently. Yes, yes I know... try the UH-1... someday (need rudders first dangit!). Anyhow... point is... A multirole and VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier with modern avionics pretty much would kick complete butt. I'm getting more and more stoked for this particular aircraft by the day! Can't wait!

heh! I think there are quite a few folks that (with proper SIM support of key functionality) would love this one, since there are a few FS heavy guys in here (my perception). The functionality I speak of would be ability to load vehicles into the aircraft, making it useful in resupplying airbases and FARPs using the warehousing features of the SIM / ME and also simply fun...

DCS F-18 is going to be a C as you mentioned. "E" model will be tricky due to the lack of declassified information. I wouldn't bet on it anytime soon :( I don't think we'll see the DCS 18 until *maybe* December to line up with the holidays.

Yup, I hear ya. I think people are taking the news (maybe it's just me) to mean that the F/A-18C won't be coming until some time in 2014. I believe that's where the anxiety is coming from. But good point and thanks for clarifying. I agree.

Oh god, that's a great idea! I don't know why it doesn't get more love! Sweet plane! :thumbup:

I completely understand and agree with your longing for a hardcore sim and supporting the field. 100% agreement. What you seem to be suggesting though, is that everyone essentially provide investment funding for something down the line while withholding their opinions on the apparent direction. While I agree that many comments are basal and could be put a lot more constructively (I have beat that drum on occasion), this thread could be simply interpreted as a poll... in lieu of an actual poll... instead of personally. Our collective opinions here should not translate to the downfall of ED. ED knows their actual sales figures and knows which direction they have to go to survive and prosper as the company they want to be. They have opened up 3rd party modules, so we can conceivably get any airframe to the DCS level we want as quickly as someone makes it, regardless of EDs next high fidelity aircraft. Initially, I was disappointed by the first news release. The follow-up clarified and I became more amenable to their overall plan and direction. I think a lot of people let their excitement for each release and development translate to anxiety and deprecating remarks when they perceive that things are not going the way they want. But.... people should still be able to voice what they like / don't like. It is up to us in how we interpret what they are saying, what is done with that information, and how we react to it is on us. Blindly buying something with the hopes that the company will do something you want eventually (because you are so desperate for something) is not a balanced approach either... discontent with one decision a company makes is not the same as wholly throwing that company out in the wash. A business stays in business by satisfying the demand for its products / services. ED knows what that data shows. I will say though that it appears the demand for the next high fidelity "Fighter" (F/A-18C) is significant and getting to that goal quickly means more cash, sooner (obviously no small task). I wonder if it is feasible, possible for ED to expand / grow by: attracting more investors (this is the most active diehard sim community I've ever seen, seeming to indicate a good market for the genre), selling shares (maybe going public), starting a recurring fee-based structure, coupling with another company, fundraising campaign... (kickstarter type thing... don't laugh... the Mig-21Bis did a pre-launch sale which followed this model). How bout... tell the community it will take XYZ number of $$ to make this module and with that $$$ this much time. You want it? Here's a site with a cash level to be obtained and a timing. You contribute that much cash and we will commit to making this module (or whatever) within the next 12 months. Anyway, thanks @Datajack for your post. Good, grounding message. [EDIT]On thought that occurred to me after I posted... Net Promoters are important and those are probably the more vocal ones on the forum. Hook the diehard fans and sell n number of more copies of each offering because they won't stop talking about it... showing off their custom made setup to whoever visits, etc. I get the feeling the more casual gamers don't do that, but I could be wrong. Sell to the hackers in other words... if that makes sense.[/EDIT]

+1 Agreed. I am one of those who dropped $$ on FC3 because I wanted to fly something fast and do A2A. The temptation was too great. Bought the P-51D as well... which doesn't make any sense either being that until now there was nothing for it to fight really. I wish ED would have stuck with one genre for a bit and done it wholly before going WWII... mainly just because I am selfish and wish they would put their resources towards other things. Now.. the ray of light here is that 3rd parties can develop modules to DCS level to their heart's content! So I remain hopeful that we will get the AV-8B and Mig-21Bis someday in the near'ish future (2013, at least for the Mig-21). But yeah.. I was discouraged by the news from @Wags. Not the direction I was hoping to hear. I get it though... making a DCS level model for each release is an insane workload. Most SIMs that accurately (to the nth degree like DCS) simulate an aircraft... only ever do one aircraft! DCS World should remain a platform that is developed to make mission building easier / better, make 3rd party dev of realistic aircraft easier / better, etc. Every year they should release a DCS gold standard aircraft module, but IMO... they should knock it off w/ the "lite" and "FC" titles... they are just a distraction and there are other ways to make money that would vector development more in the hardcore sim direction. I know this will be unpopular, but I would even propose a monthly subscription for extra services / standards. Everyone knows that consistent cashflow is critical and would take the edge off the feast / famine model of big releases. IMHO