Dancer

Considering it seems the thread has been revived, I'll chip in my two cents. Anyone having issues with the quick capture failing to capture f-10? Often works in a very on-off manner, mainly off. Happens on Caucasus, Syria and PG in the F/A-18. Would be great to find a fix!

Firstly, I never said that an SME’s Opinion is immediately disqualified because some guys “did some research on the internet”. As Nine and BN said, they give the “feel” of the aircraft by their experience and muscle memory, as well as some helpful data when they remember it. However I’d guess that it’s nigh impossible to build a simulator just on that. Both SME’s and the data are important when they are applicable. ED have made it specific and clear that they are developing a USN and USMC circa 2007 lot-20 C model. To me, that means that they’re being specific about as many things about the jet as possible, unless their strategy has changed. It is good to hear that you’ve flown so many types of the Classic. Your comment on flight characteristics helps as well. What I meant earlier when I said that we don’t need SME’s to see problems is that there is public documentation describing flight regimes for the F/A-18 that are impossible to obtain in the sim, particularly about AoA in vertical spins is the issue I’ve seen. Definitely agree. SME’s should be involved in conversations with each other and the devs, not lectures.

I don’t feel like this is a place to use popular opinion and status to degrade others educated statements in some group think movement. Coyle and I have spent a lot of time looking at our hornet, and trust me, we don’t need SME’s to know that some things are wrong. Yes we may be civilians and that gives us far less insight to the real world piloting aspect, but I’d argue we care just as much about the airframe and it’s capabilities. Not having real world experience in types aside from the 2007 lot 20 like most SME’s I’ve heard of shouldn’t nullify hours of research done on the communities side into the flight model alone.

Hello there, Just testing the F/A-18 A/A weapons and radar. Problems with TWS have already been surfaced so I will only say I've had the same issues with AMRAAM guidance. It also looks like the AIM-120 has become extremely susceptible to chaff. I'm not sure If this has always been the case. Attached is screenshots from Tacview of one of many examples I've encountered on Hoggit's PGAW server with relevant data moments before. The points of interest involve these factors: The Missile is within 10 nautical miles (Pitbull) when it loses lock The target is not flying above mach 1 (not LOS rate evasion) The difference in aspect is roughly 100 degrees. If this was intentional I apologies for wasting your time. However I consider your attention to be drawn to this issue when able.

Awesome to hear, can't wait to see this fixed in OB!

For some time now there has been an issue with the JSOW A behaviour which can be identified by comparing to the JSOW C. As far as I'm aware the JSOW is a low observable glide weapon which even the SA-15 should have difficulty tracking. In the track below I have displayed both the JSOW A and JSOW C variants being employed against an active SA-6 sight on Good difficulty. The Buk is able to track and engage the JSOW A, however the JSOW C is left untouched and successfully destroys the target. Throughout more open gameplay this behaviour can be seen with employment against SA-2, SA-3, SA-10 and most major long range SAMs, no matter their age. When the JSOW was new to the Hornet both A and C varients had similar stealth characteristics. Is this behaviour accurate to real life, if not, I request that an investigation goes into place regarding a possible bug regarding the JSOW A low observability profile. Note; I have seen similar behaviour with the GB-6 varients of glide bombs from the JF-17. Thanks JSOW.trk