Hello!
I am enjoying the ITO very much. Great Work to you all!

When I am flying in the “Peace for Galilee” from the 109th FS (Kfirs) from Ramat David, the inter-flight comm frequency (VHF) is unusable and shows up in WDP as well as BMS as something like 558.62, which is obviously not a valid VHF frequency. In the cockpit, I had one as 58.1, which, of course meant I could not talk to my wingmen. I tried switching the flight to UHF (channel 6) and they responded, but when I tried to get them to commit, attack a target, change formation, or check in (rejoin whatever) there was no response and they didn’t execute the order.

Is there a way to update the assigned frequencies the wingmen will be on or change how they are assigned?

@Mav-jp
Data link should prevent this. The missile’s inherent trajectory shaping and DL will put it in a close to “optimal” position to see the target when the seeker goes active and it should continue to use DL as an input until pitbull.

You’re correct about outrunning the missile in a full drag manuever, however, my beef with BMS AMRAAM is the overall pessimistic ranges for Rmax and Rne. They are short, it seems.

Hello!
I am enjoying the ITO very much. Great Work to you all!

When I am flying in the “Peace for Galilee” from the 109th FS (Kfirs) from Ramat David, the inter-flight comm frequency (VHF) is unusable and shows up in WDP as well as BMS as something like 558.62, which is obviously not a valid VHF frequency. In the cockpit, I had one as 58.1, which, of course meant I could not talk to my wingmen. I tried switching the flight to UHF (channel 6) and they responded, but when I tried to get them to commit, attack a target, change formation, or check in (rejoin whatever) there was no response and they didn’t execute the order.

Is there a way to update the assigned frequencies the wingmen will be on or change how they are assigned?

Just a couple of thoughts on the Hornet avionics discussion:

It would be cool but what F/A-18 systems would you have to, or want to model that couldn’t be reskins (more or less) of existing sim components? You could easily (being relative, I’m not a programmer or coder, but have quite a bit of experience in that area) make the APG-68 look like an APG-73, and maybe even account for some of the performance differences to get a passable A++,C or D. You can reskin ALR-56 to look like ALR-67 and remake the HUD. Those are cosmetic that would add some immersion into Hornet like world. From there, it probably gets much more difficult.

E/F and maybe G would be more realistic for the modern fight, since legacy Hornets are beginning to lose relevance in the modern air to air fight. Newer E/F/G software releases look very different than the older versions, and actually kind of have a video game feel (to me anyway).

As for your list, that is impressive and not easy to do. Link-16 is complex, but you can do moving map HSD with YAME (I even reconfigured the compass overlay to be Hornet-like). Any EW (jamming and its effects especially) and dynamic RCS continue to kick the butts of real simulators, so anything that approximates that stuff here by this crew is impressive.

In any event, Hornet revamp would be neat and I think you could make an initial cosmetic attempt without having to actually build it from scratch. Of course, then there is the flight model……

I am also very interested in updating the AIM-120 ranges to C and D performance. The 120s in the game now are VERY pessimistic and range updates would make them much more realistic, especially with D now in the US inventory.

@sebastianthiago:

Hello, just curiosity, the hornet will be some day fully system implemented some day? I mean, map in colors on mfd, etc.

My workaround for this is to export the graphics using YAME to a second monitor and use the Block 60 pedestal moving map. I changed the range rings to be more of a compass rose. Its still a work in progress, but its a little better than just the default HSI. Even A models had a microfiche moving map.

I’d like to see a skin upgrade to the avionics to make it APG-73 or even APG-79 like. If you know anyone who has those skills I am willing to help craft the visuals, if required/desired. I’ve often wondered how hard it is to re-skin the avionics. Any idea?

Thanks

Rather than start a new thread, I thought I’d post this here:

Is there a callback for the Hornet Flap switch? The one I’m using for the Viper flap switch isn’t working on the -18. I can click it in 3D, but would like an option to HOTAS it.

Thanks!
Yeti

I thought it was “Continuously Computed Impact Point” Constantly sounds like a lot of work, but continuously just sounds like something being done for fun!

Use the reflected cue or get a lot of smack on the jet……maybe?

Corner airspeed in a legacy A++/C/D is around 300-330 config dependant. HOWEVER, bleed rate at corner with anything other than 2/2/G load is eyewatering as well, so you got that going for you(50+ kts/sec), so I wouldn’t hit the merge with less than 380 and more like 420 if your fighting MiG-29 or Su-27 series. Remember even in full grunt those little 404s are not putting out anything near what the Ruskie motors are so NRG management is key to fighting a Hornet effectively. That and the slow under corner NRG addition is less than stellar, but you get great high alpha manueverability. Better tp gp for a quick kill than stay in a protracted turning fight because dumping the nose will mean giving exclusive use turning room to your dance partner.

Giving this thread a bump because the E/F flight model is kinda gooned but the C/D is much better representation.
The almost unrecoverable deep stall (falling leaf in the Hornet) was almost removed with FCC updates in the real aircraft.
To recover in 4.33 I’ve had to (in an E or F):
1. Throttle - Idle
2. Spin recovery switch - RCVY
3. EMER JETT Stores
4. Control Stick - full forward
When recovery was indicated by an increase in air speed and a break in AOA:
5. Throttles MAX AB
Passing 250 KIAS:
6. Smooth pulloput not to exceed AOA tone.

Seems kinda buggy and it usually (!) works……needs to be fixed, but I’m not a code slinger.

I agree that in the tactical campaign that you are driving, your semi-global SA is not reflected in the determinations of the digital JAG.

However a real pilot destroying a high value target, especially an infrastructure target, in combat on his own initiative is going to be answering to someone (probably not dereliction of duty, probably failure to obey a lawful order based on the ATO and ACO about not destroying friendly infrastructure. Probably would fall into the real world category of “Good initiative, Bad judgment!”

I am also chuckling at your wingman’s obviously “superior” moral awareness.

Let that be a lesson to you: “Don’t try to win the war making tactically relevant decisions. Rather, win the war by surviving the hair raising missions the AI plans for you. Guaranteed to run you through at least 3 SAM and 4 AAA rings within the commit range of at least one hostile fighter group!”

Good on you though!