Cool - I was waiting for one of the MFDs to switch to the AG radar page...

On landing couldn't see any IFLOLS - I wonder if it will be in a popup window?

I would bet all of my money that the first FA 18 version is an AA only version and those we will have a long time only this version.
Even the Harrier version comes without an AG RADAR, for some reason.... ED has no one who can manage the engine to simulate how “real” RADAR would act, even an AA RADAR.
I really believe that what we have right now is something like a "visual tracker". That would explain why ED has so much problems to get the AA missiles work like they should and even now all AI can "look" with the “RADAR” through the mountains. And it would explain why it is so easy to flare and chaff each missile, even the chaff or the flare are miles away from the AC and it would also explain why the ARRAAM has so a wide detection range if the missile goes Pitbull but only on foes, which can only be if the missile know/can see who is who. A Missile Radar can't do that like in this game.
But we will see.

Interesting prediction.... only time will tell, I guess!

I suspect you're right with the AA radar first - however don't forget that the Viggen has AG radar as well as the upcoming community A-4E Skyhawk so it is doable (however I understand that they are using different approaches for the AG radar).

A-A and Dumb bombs are the initial plan I think, the lead systems designer has been chatting about the F-18 quite a bit on the forum.

Nate

Every time I read "soon" in the title of this thread I chuckle a little bit.

Does anyone have any solid or even semi-solid ideas when the Hornet development actually started? 2 years ago? 5?

A tad optimistic, we never learn

Nate

AMRAAMs have no IFF. They'll happily go after your buddy - it might not be the easiest thing to accomplish, but there are situations where it happens. It also doesn't have a 'wide detection range' ... it's 6-7nm which is half of its published radar range. AI cheats, and that's all there is to that.
Countermeasures work with a specific statistical scheme and have nothing to do with whatever you said.

As for programmers, ED has plenty of capable people when it comes to simulating onboard devices. The only question from there on, is how far are you going to go (ie time and effort) to deepen the simulation of said device?

It's unfortunate the same can't be said for planning, communicating and integration. Perhaps the company is balanced all wrong....what's the point in have capable people for 'simulating onboard devices' when there's incompetence everywhere else?

indeed... kind of flight planning menu before flight is really needed for MP GUI.

back to hornet, does active radar missile code get renewed in Fa18c build DCS?

it has to have 2nd stage guidance right?


@GrayGhost

There is no information on this right now. Just that Wags said that they have someone working on missiles.

And how long has this "someone" been working on missiles, I wonder?

1. Wags has already stated in the video link I posted and in several other different statements that the AN/APG-73 is being modeled in full and will be part of the entire package for the Hornet. Also, the entire package including the targeting pod along with most of the available weapons that are currently in the simulation will already be available and work properly including the AGM-88 HARM. He should be releasing another video soon and has stated that the following videos will go into depth on the rest of the Hornet systems. He said that they will be adding some new weapons not currently available in the simulation like the JSOW and some others. We've all been waiting for a good multi-role aircraft for a long time and it will be a huge letdown for the community if this turns out to not be the case.

2. The AV-8B NA is a non-radar aircraft. According to Razbam, they have stated that they will probably incorporate the AN/APG-65 radar into the module at some point but no promises and it would no longer be a AV-8B NA but the AV-8B. It's based on the same code for the Hornet and according to them they would need to use ED's source code.

3. The missile performance has nothing to do with the current radar tracking systems on the FC-3 aircraft. It's already been addressed on the forums. They did hire a missile specialist last year around the end of the summer. The AI and radar can not see through the mountains. I don't know where you're developing that idea from. I've spoofed plenty of AI and human pilots by flying around the other side of a hilltop often enough to know this. The terrain will mask your location just as in real life. Same thing with missiles. I've trashed plenty of missiles by using the terrain. The biggest problem is that the FC-3 aircraft like the F-15C use a simplified control setup that was originally based on Flanker. So it works but it's not as realistic as the Hornet will be. But the radar does function close enough to work. They consulted a real F-15C pilot for their big update they did back awhile ago and he said it was close enough for the FC-3 version.

4. Flare and chaff work just like they do in real life in the simulation. Some problems with over performance of chaff and flare have been addressed. I can tell you from direct experience that I use chaff and flare extensively and I can see missiles tracking me and then exploding a few hundred yards behind me. I've also had semi-active missiles track and kill me and I've done the same to people on Blue Flag. Using chaff is less effective on semi because of the tracking plane directing the missile. This has been beaten to death on the forums and the consensus is that it's modeled pretty closely to real life. The main problems exist due to missile performance but that's the performance of it's tracking and energy state. Has nothing to do with what you stated.

5. This is completely untrue. AIM-120C's can kill friend or foe. It's all based on who you lock and fire on. We see it happen all the time. I don't know where you're getting your information from but we use IFF all the time to know who to fire on. The same thing is modeled for the AI so they don't fire on friendlies. I also don't know what you mean by "wide detection range". They've discussed and published the information they use for the missile detection cone and tracking performance. The main problem is the ability for the missile to maintain energy state, maneuverability and tracking for long flights for certain missiles. Again this has been talked about a lot and the engineer was hired to work on this. They have stated that we will see a lot of the performance issues addressed in 2.5. But again, I fly Blue Flag a lot and there are plenty of realistic engagements and I never see complaints like this.

You can always claim fully-modeled if your audience doesn't know what fully-modeled looks like and are trained to fight anyone who might.

Shots fired!!
Hahahahaha!!


I'm sure Wags has never been wrong before and everything he says comes into fruition..... eventually.


Please, please, please let it be DCS A-10C quality.... please, please, please for the love of all things good and holy, don't drop the ball on this one!


"Close enough" as compared to what? You do realize that such a vague term can mean anything.... Wildly out of whack can still be considered "close enough" of previous iterations were even more erroneous....


Are you sure? Or is it just "close enough"?


LOL!! IFF in a combat engagement? Really? I'm sure Mr. Eagle Driver also said this was "close enough"!

I'm sorry but this is a truly silly comment. Name one other combat ready simulation that has anywhere near the fidelity of the A-10C in DCS. And don't say P3D because you need the TAC PAC and that's not even close to the same combat level. And it's already been stated that the Hornet will be of the same level of fidelity. So adding in the new maps and all............well, I think you get my point.

Really? Really??!!


And again, counting the chickens before the eggs even hatch.... well, I think you missed the point.

Go ahead and name one. And I'm obviously talking about consumer level computer simulations and not military contract grade ones.

IFF only tells who NOT to fire on.
Unless the simulation at hand is somewhat low grade such as DCS Mirage 2000C in which you will get a IFF friendly on a coalition.side.BLUE Su-25 dangling around.