All Activity

Hab das auch schon gelesen und fand es schon kurios. Ein Heli wird sich sehr schwer tun auf dem Mond . Ich dachte mir das die geplanten Steuerungsorgane des Landegefährts vielleicht ähnlich zu bedienen sind wie ein Heli und das Gefährt sich ähnlich im Flug verhält auch wenn es keine Rotorblätter haben dürfte. Dann könnte vielleicht ein solches Training Sinn machen damit die Astronauten ein Gefühl für das Flugverhalten bekommen

My understanding is that the circuitry responsible for sounding off launch warnings is specifically reserved for the guidance commands of certain SAM systems. The RWR will however sound off anytime it detects a PRF change from a present emitter. So, you'll be able to hear a MIG-23 change from search to track for instance by listening to the new guy audio tones. It's an entirely different beast of RWR from anything else we've had before especially simulation wise. At the time these were installed, the MIG-23 really wasn't the primary air threat, they were only in service a few years at that point, and it is unlikely that the US intelligence community at that point had the proper ELINT data to be able to feed to RWRs in the first place.

The battlefield is dumb. No 'instinct' as programmed autonomic behaviors. No self-cognizance of environmental drivers on specific if-this-do-that response. No MQ-9, RQ-4, RQ-180, MQ-20. So whatever is low-value up ahead, getting shot at by everything from MPADS to Pantsirs, isn't there to tweak the enemy's nose and get an emission. Of course, there is no network centric surveillance radar system, blinking on and off, like a Christmas tree, either. And threat vehicles don't skedaddle and aren't dispersed with protective revetments, decoy pits, APS rockets or multi-battery cross coverage to continue to fight, once the basic acquisition and engagement radars are down. As far as the F-35's own sensors...meh. The APG-81 is a tiny aperture with, I dunno, 1,676 TRM. Most of the biggies are around 2,000 with the APG-77V1 having 2,300. APG-85 will be better, except that its GaN is Chinese supplier restricted. Also, despite being an AESA, with very rapid beam pointing, the total sensor cone, as with all PARs, is limited by the number of degrees you can point it, offboresight. Somewhere between 45-60`, the amount of phase rotation 'adjustment' needed to steer the beam, starts to radically effect it's tracking qualities. The one exception to this is the ES-05 Raven, with a repositioner to point the AESA and achieve up to 120` off bore performance. EO wise, the DAS is really just an extended range MAWS with SAIRST capabilities out to about 15-18nm. But if you have an enemy on you at that range, and you're not putting effective fires on him. You're already in trouble. The EOTS is what is intended to help here but it requires an effective ASQ-239 or AWACS etc. global cue to prepoint and it's not the best when it comes to being a pseudo-IRST, being more intended for A2G point target tracking than large volume search like a PIRATE or Skywards-G (Modern IRST with DROIC and QWIP can scan a volume of sky equal to a mechanical scan radar with similar detection probabilities, out to 50-60nm, not your daddy's AAS-42). Radar cannot jam. Stealth is not global but aspect sensitive (which is why blinking radars which come on in your flanks are dangerous) and the APG-81/ASQ-239 do not do cyber stuff to get inside the back end of the radar and mess with it's head. It is this which allows a (standoff) F-35 to bring in Gen-4s to the target area with 10-20km ranged weapons. Which brings us back to a 'smart battlefield' since you are carrying two smart weapons or one rack of small diameter bombs plus a pair of AIM-120s on the doors. Say an AGM-88G and 4 GBU-53. Sounds like a lot. But it isn't. Not when the other side has 4 Pantsir or Tor guarding an S-400V with 22 40N6 and 8 9M96E2. All of which are active homing off an IMU. All of which can be silent-fired based on a cue from an A-50U, 200 miles back. There is a reason the F-35 has an ALE-70 towed decoy. It is not invisible/invulnerable and, unlike the F-22, it's also not doing Mach 1.35 at 40,000ft where the ability to defeat a threat missile is a genuine possibility. A 460sqft wing area, 110psf wingloading 25` wingsweep and T/Wr of around .5 IRT and .8 AB does not a supersonic cruise and maneuver platform make. Take the fight down to 19-25,000ft, tops, depending on whether you want to fight in the conband, and you'd better not be detected because you are kinematically touchable by all the battlefield weapons out there. This is not the 1994 when the F-35 program stood up. Buk is now Viking. Tunguska is now Pantsir. And the Chinese knockoffs of Russian SA-teens are better than the Russian SA-twenties. People are going to find that the F-35 is more of a standoff RQ-4 Blk.40 and a VLO EA-18G than a wolfpack leader. Which is why you're seeing a massive shift from rocket propelled weapons like the JAGM and the Brimstone and even the AARGM-ER towards mini-cruise systems like SPEAR-3, CMMT, Jackal and Barracuda. The bad guys have a _serious_ Air Defense and EW advantage and the best way to deal with it is to start using Gen 4.5 as bomb trucks which can carry a lot of these new mini-cruise missiles with standoffs of 50-100nm and no threat exposure at all. The F-35 can do that mission, but only with a 24hr conversion time to bring pylons on the jet and seal up the plumbing (if they have fuel) then take them off to restore the VLO, each way. This will further crush the Lightning's kinematics. With this in mind, the F-15EX, with its ALQ-250 and APG-83V1 as well as ATP-XR Sniper can likely equal or outrange the F-35 in most active sensor, ELS and jammer capability related areas. That is what we might think about as an adjunct to the modern stealth fleet. Not a dead-and-gone F-15C which is severely over-hours on lifespan and underpowered on engine thrust. Unfortunately, you have the Razbam F-15E to show how bad this can go. Which is all the more a shame because an accurate F-15E is not even self-defending with HARM and mixed VLRAAM plus standoffs. It is typically heavily overfueled to compensate for all the external drag and thus has only 2-4 stations available for droppable ordnance. The F-15EX (SA/QA/I2 etc.) changes all of this with the outboard wing stations and the BRU-61 multiracks. And that is the ONE variant which is not adequately (new engines, better radar, LAD, MAWS, Legion Pod, Shield Pod) depicted, though the Spino Mod at least tries hard.

Друг мой, я так и написал что пока на фазе проверки, сейчас проснутся опубликуют

It should be much more accurate than 50 feet. It is basically using the barometer when it should be using the laser, which has 10m slant range accuracy. If you are bombing at the exact barometric altitude of your current waypoint, it is fine. Until it properly uses the laser

I agree it is an odd limit.

I'm getting the hang of it, which is a lot sooner than I do some modules. I've even gone through 3 of the 4 basic bombing methods, the last one I haven't gotten to being equivalent to an "over the shoulder delivery". The plane is pretty straight forward, compared to some imo. I've seen some threads that say the ground attack accuracy is off, but is it any worse or better than the F-4E module in Dive Toss? My first tries with CCIP and CCRP were actually within about 50 feet long or short, so it didn't seem all that bad to me. Really fun aircraft, and glad that I got it.

Yes, I agree with you that the Mosquito does not behave realistically for a two wheel landing. I was fortunate in the early days of my aviation career to fly many different types of tail draggers from the Tiger Moth to the DC-3 and the Bristol Freighter. Like you, I know that pitch up on a two wheel touchdown is proportional to the sink rate. In fact if you have a really low vertical velocity on touchdown you can actually get a nose down pitch moment due to the drag from the wheels spinning up. I reported this unrealistic behavior about 4 years ago when the Mosquito was released, , but nothing has been done to fix it. Unfortunately I don't think it ever will be. The Mosquito is still labelled "Early Access" but probably could be more accurately labelled "Abandoned". I spent some time with the configuration files looking at the possibility reducing the moment arm between the CG and the main wheels but a successful modification proved beyond my capabilities. Perhaps someone more qualified reading this will take up the challenge.

So what do you propose? Can I propose you then to put a track here with you flying the Su-25T and avoiding IR missiles with DIRCM alone? Of course, it should work with ZERO FLARES to blind the incoming IR missile, otherwise we misinterpret what it does and veer off realism!

Заглянул в ФП и к сожалению миссию там не нашёл. Использовал фильтры "Карта Афганистан", "миссия", "локализация русский" вместе и по отдельности поиск к сожалению ничего не выдал. Подскажите пожалуйста как найти вашу миссию?

Guess what...! F@#@ this <profanity>! It now says login session expired every single time the internet reconnects. Basically I login with the account on the initial DCS start menu, enter the game, enter a mission, disconnect the internet, reconnect it and wamm.."login session expired".=)) When I thought that I escaped the first problem this happens now. Why can't the game just recognize that it has been RECONNECTED TO THE SAME ACCOUNT and says login session expired like if I entered in single player with no internet to verify the modules, which indeed has a limited play time? Why does it do this confusion?

I will remember this for future missions. As it stands currently, what i am working of is for my friends who dont fly but rather do combined arms, commander, and jtac stuff so the premise of the mission is to hold the airfield while repelling opposing ground forces and having even one unit break the airdrome is exactly what i was wanting to reset the timer. Thank you for adding this to the thread

Just make sure you realize what the conditions are required for a coalition to actually take control of an airport. If there is even 1 opposing nearby it may not flip but remains contested. From a forum post a while ago: In general it seems 1. Something beats nothing obviously. I even had a situation where a marker tire I had forgot to set to neutral owner was capturing a FARP when no other units in range. 2. Armor beats infantry 3. Armed beats unarmed 4. Count doesn't seem to matter. One infantry against 10 infantry is still evenly contested. Some surprising edge cases.. Unarmed static shipping containers and canvas tents seem to have magical powers that defend against even armed infantry. An orca whale static will capture a FARP. I guess that IS a killer whale after all. Or even an aggressive cow set to a coalition.

thats an edit in post production by the videographer. not a walk around feature. there will likely come a day when ed has their own version of this, but today is not that day.

@Zabuzard I tried to get a good track of it today. But unfortunately, track replay doesn't work with HB modules for me. When I try to replay a track including the Tomcat or the Phantom, they just fly off and start doing their own thing.

ED should have started on this when the Harrier and WWII maps got released. Anyway my wish list for Amphibious warfare has been the following. fuctional landing craft as requested (WWII, cold war/modern) The ability to use amphibious warfare ships as a spawning point for amphibious vehicles. Give us an embark and disemabrk from ship command. In the ideal world there would be the correct animation in the good enough I'm not watching anyhow the landing craft and amphibious vehicles just appear. I'd also like to have infantry on the ships to board helicopters as well Also I've said it countless times but more ships as well and better AI for artillery.

I always felt it weird that western designs can use ACM modes up to 10nm. (Or in the F-14s case 15nm with PAL also known as the "Do I really need a RIO when I can just use PAL to send an active AIM-54 off the rails and just turn cold?" ) while Soviet designs are almost half that range for their ACM modes

I will get this added and test it tomorrow night. Ill let you know if it works, thank you

Hi! You should be able to solve it by adding a trigger that uses "Time Since Flag" together with "Coalition Has Airdrome" as conditions. Since you already have a trigger that activates Flag 1 when Red captures the base, you just need to add a "Time Since Flag 1" = 600 seconds condition combined with "Coalition Has Airdrome = Red". This way, the trigger will only fire after Red has controlled the airbase for 10 minutes. If Blue captures it in the meantime, Flag 1 turns off and the timer resets automatically. Since the trigger is set to Switched Condition, it will start counting again if Red recaptures the airbase later. You can do exactly the same logic for Blue, just reversed. Let me know if this works for you

I'm just guessing, but the HOTAS tms aft short serves to automatically adjust flir focus for TGP, perhaps this would help? I'll try it when I get home tonight.

No, it's probably fine. Don't think they will moderate a game from 30 years ago. It's not exactly the competition.

Then you didn't read @Art-J's post thoroughly enough to be honest. Hopefully the devs will sort it out. People are just trying to help, and might not "feel" as affected as you. Or are so used to the time it takes to fix various issues, and so they just automatically resort to work arounds. Cheers!

Ah! Beautiful city! Would love to back, especially now that I know we can go out for bears. [emoji6] Guess I missed that part, we went out on a shooting range instead. [emoji1] Was there around Christmas, and we bought some really good schnapps at a Christmas market. Good times! [emoji1303] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk