Leaderboard

Судя по названию мод меняет авиабазы до значительного высокофигзнаеткакого уровня проработки ВПП,ЗЕМЛИ И Т.Д.Может выйдет.Судя по его по постам он в работе над модом т.е.продолжает работать.Что то конечно не такого уровня было в ГС1.12 когда данный человек делал для авиабаз.Это в западной ветке .Еще про ГС1.12

You only started simming 5 years ago, and it appears you know heap loads more than I do, and was given a mod badge to boot! Where did I go wrong???? Tell me baby, where did I go wrong cuz nothing... :D Have you done any go-fast stuff that isn't bound to get hit by random teen villager chugging rocks at random birds or modeled an avionic suite that can toss a bomb on said teen's head from 15,000 feet? Just wondering. :D

For the mission designers: The last couple of weeks I've been digging through field manuals and online resources to find info on "realistic" battalions/groups/platoons/batteries/... The result is a mission file with more than 30 different battalions, batteries, platoons,.... For the ease of deployment in missions, larger groups are divided in subgroups, so you can deploy a single platoon out of a battalion if you want. Most groups are just a line-up of all units needed in that group, so exact unit placement is up to you. Other groups are already placed in a setup like found in the online resources. Same goes for some subgroups. Different variants are available where appropriate. In infantry platoons, some of them have the soldiers themself in a separate group. Leave out if not needed, duplicate if more are needed. Obviously, DCS does not have all vehicules available that are needed to make it 1 on 1 realistic. So, non existing vehicules are replaced by simular units or left out. Used my imagination here. Also included, is a farp template, what allows you to place a group of vehicles that are outlining a farp structure if zoomed in completly in the editor. Handy to place the farp on a exact spot, or to place units on the farp. Once done, place the FARP structure itself on the central unit, which is another type for easy recognition. Download HERE. In the download are a .miz file what can be used to ad the groups to your own templates, a templates.lua file to simply replace your templates and a pdf with all groups in it. List: Patriot Battery Patriot Battery Firing Battery Patriot Battery SHORAD Patriot Battery Support Heavy Cavalry Troop Heavy Cavalry Troop Scout Platoon 1 Heavy Cavalry Troop Scout Platoon 2 Heavy Cavalry Troop Tank Platoon 1 Heavy Cavalry Troop Tank Platoon 2 Heavy Cavalry Troop Mortar Section Heavy Cavalry Troop Maintenance Section Heavy Cavalry Troop Headquarters Section Heavy Cavalry Troop Headquarters Section Heavy Cavalry Troop Fire Support Team   Light Cavalry Troop Light Cavalry Troop Scout Platoon 1 Light Cavalry Troop Scout Platoon 2 Light Cavalry Troop Antitank Platoon 1 Light Cavalry Troop Antitank Platoon 2 Light Cavalry Troop Mortar Section Light Cavalry Troop Maintenance Section Light Cavalry Troop Headquarters Section Light Cavalry Troop Fire Support Team Mechanized Infantry Platoon Mechanized Infantry Platoon HQ Mechanized Infantry Platoon platoon leader Mechanized Infantry Platoon Squad 1 Mechanized Infantry Platoon Squad 2 Mechanized Infantry Platoon Squad 3   Heavy Brigade Combat Team Fires Battery HBCT Fires Battery HQ HBCT Fires Battery Supply Section HBCT Fires Battery Firing Platoon HBCT Fires Battery Fire Direction Center HBCT Fires Battery Howitzer Section HBCT Fires Ammo Section Heavy Brigade Combat Team Armor Company HBCT Armor Company HQ HBCT Armor Company Tank Platoon 1 HBCT Armor Company Tank Platoon 2 HBCT Armor Company Tank Platoon 3   Heavy Brigade Combat Team Recon Troop HBCT Recon Troop HQ HBCT Recon Troop Mortar Section HBCT Recon Troop Recce Platoon 1 HBCT Recon Troop Recce Platoon 2 MLRS Battalion MLRS Battalion HQ and service battery MLRS Battalion MLRS Firing Battery 1 MLRS Battalion MLRS Firing Battery 2 MLRS Battalion MLRS Firing Battery 3   Stryker Brigade Combat Team HHC Infantry SBCT HHC Infantry HQ Section SBCT HHC Infantry Antiarmor Platoon SBCT HHC Infantry Command Section SBCT HHC Infantry fires support platoon SBCT HHC Infantry Retrans Section SBCT HHC Infantry Company HQ SBCT HHC Infantry Scout Platoon SBCT HHC Infantry Mortar Squad Stryker Brigade Combat Team Riffle Company SBCT Riffle Company Rifle Platoon SBCT Riffle Company Rifle Platoon 2 SBCT Riffle Company Mortar Section1 SBCT Riffle Company Mobile Guns System Platoon   Stryker Brigade Combat Team Reconnaissance Squadron SBCT Reconnaissance Squadron Command Group SBCT Reconnaissance Squadron Fire Support team SBCT Reconnaissance Squadron Retransmission Section SBCT Reconnaissance Squadron Troop HQ SBCT Reconnaissance Squadron NBC Recce Platoon SBCT Reconnaissance Squadron Recce Platoon 1 SBCT Reconnaissance Squadron Recce Platoon 2 SBCT Reconnaissance Squadron Mortar Section Soviet Tank Battalion T-72 STB72 HQ STB72 Tank Company 1 STB72 Tank Company 2 STB72 Tank Company 3 STB72 Supply Platoon   Soviet Tank Battalion T-80 STB80 HQ STB80 Tank Company 1 STB80 Tank Company 2 STB80 Tank Company 3 STB80 Supply Platoon Soviet Anti Tank Battalion SATB HQ SATB Anti tank company 1 SATB Anti tank company 2 SATB Anti tank company 3 SATB Supply Platoon   Soviet Mechanized Infantry BN (APC) SMIB APC HQ SMIB APC Rifle Company 1 SMIB APC Rifle Company infantry 1 SMIB APC Rifle Company infantry 2 SMIB APC Rifle Company infantry 3 SMIB APC Rifle Company infantry 4 SMIB APC Rifle Company infantry 5 SMIB APC Rifle Company infantry 6 SMIB APC Rifle Company infantry 7 SMIB APC Rifle Company infantry 8 SMIB APC Rifle Company infantry 9 SMIB APC Rifle Company 2 SMIB APC Rifle Company 3 SMIB APC Mortar Company vehicles SMIB APC Mortar Company mortars SMIB APC SAM Platoon SMIB APC Supply Platoon SMIB APC Signal Platoon SMIB APC AGL Platoon SMIB APC Antitank Platoon SMIB APC Recce Platoon

Hi together, well, i´m new in this forum and here is my creation of desktop panels.... Thank you all for the interesting posts with all the information i need to build these. If someone like them, please check out the pdf file. But there is one question left: Is it possible to map more then one action to a switch? For example, i want to switch the brightness of the MFCD together with the HUD-Mode (day/night). Tom Panels.pdf

Ich war so ganz unbeschwert mit Dragon beim MP-Missionen testen, als dieses wunderbare Bild einer sich gefechtbereit machenden Artillerie mein Auge erfreute. Ja, überhaupt ist diese wunderbare Winterlandschaft, mit diesen wolligen wohlgeformten Flocken ein wahrer Augenschmauß und läd zum Verweilen auf meinem lederbezogenem KA-50 - Rüttelsitz ein. Ich spöpsel mein EiFon an die InterCom und schon bald erklingt Andrea´s Schmuseliedchen ... ... Du hast mich tausend mal belogen ..... ... Du hast mich tausend Mal verletzt ... ... Ich bin mit Dir so hoch geflogen ... ... doch der Himmel war besetzt ... ... Du warst der Wind in meinen Flügeln ... ... hab mit so oft mit Dir gelacht ... ... ich würd es wieder tun mit Dir ... ... heute Nacht UND ALLE .... ... wo bist Du wenn ich von Dir träum ... ... wo bist Du wenn ich heimlich wein. Wir singen alle !!!! Du hast mich ........

Just some quick input... Russian "powerlessness"? No, Russia and NATO are not comparable because the bulk of NATO is the USA and nobody competes with the USA. USA tops the military expenditure of all other countries - combined. This makes the US able to put things into active service in numbers that other countries can just dream of, for example, but there are obviously many other massive implications of this humongous budget. Doctrines and other things are also way different, with the US being very focused on power projection (forward bases, CVBGs etc), something nobody else has really aspired to since the colonial era. The USSR/Russia, France and the UK has had some of this stuff going on, but only to an extent that remains pathetic in comparison with the US. But we do not live in a world where military might and power projection capabilities rules everything anymore, thankfully. Let's hope we never have to again. But... To address the "powerlessness". First and foremost, since the USSR collapsed, they lost the popular label "superpower" and today they are generally regarded as a "great power" or "potential superpower". So less power, true. No power? False. Economy is the major thing to be taken into consideration. The Russian Federation is an economic powerhouse, and ever increasingly so. It is de facto the largest country in the world with a good fraction of global natural resources available within its borders. Apart from the mineral industry, agriculture, forestry etc, the available hydrocarbon resources in Russia are only rivalled by the SA/UAE reserves and untapped resources in Canada. Energy is their thing, really, and those industries seem to grow exponentially. The fine-industrial and general technology sector has recovered by a lot since the break-up of the USSR and the 1990's crisis and it is also growing fast at present. The European Union for example don't want to seriously risk making the RF an enemy, not because of fear of military retaliation but because Russian energy keeps Europe running. Gazprom alone is responsible for some 25% of European gas imports, and it's increasing by the year. Obviously this is a mutual deal, Russia do not want to make the EU an enemy because even though the export fraction of GDP has decreased (while the overall GDP has increased), exports are still very important and the EU is an important customer. Western companies are also investing heavily in Russia, money is flowing in and out. The global implications of all these relationships are very serious and if they were devastated the end result would be hard to predict. Furthermore, the Russian Federation is a member of the G8 - obviously somebody reckons their influence... Russia will probably join the World Trade Organization in a couple of weeks, providing a further boost to its economical potential and will probably lead to a huge surge in foreign investment as it provides a framework for more stable trade conditions. Also, being a permanent member of the UNSC they undoubtedly have serious international diplomatic power as well, one of the most obvious manifestations of this is the classic veto right of course. :) Even though open jargon can be harsh at times (like in the Medvedev speech) there is a lot going on behind closed doors. Others are definitely not considering the Russian Federation to be some kind of joke. On the topic of military might they have a sizeable arsenal of ICBMs, SLBMs, intercontinental bombers and similar assets, only surpassed by the USA. One of the few countries in the world with the capability of striking a knock out punch globally. These capabilities have faced a decent growth recently as well, with older, obsolete systems being phased out and newer put in place. Looking at Russian recent defense expenditure trends and acquisition programmes, they are constantly reinforcing their power over their regular sphere of influence. Now, remember the doctrine part I talked about - they don't want to play the US game, their priorities are different so you can't compare it straight. The RF ground forces aren't supposed to land a massive invasion on the US mainland. The RuAF isn't capable of dispatching 1500 air superiority fighters to the other side of the world to dominate the skies. But that's not their mission. The Russian Navy doesn't have 12 CVBGs and a total assload of LHCs and landing craft. They can't afford an US style approach at the moment, and they have no wish of doing so either, so it doesn't matter. Their task is to deal with threats in the immediate neighborhood, really. That said, most of the forces are in a generally bad state at present but these issues are being rectified at a surprising pace. The RF armed forces will most definitely be modern, swift and efficient in 2025 if things continue on this track. Sure, combined NATO forces would most definitely be able to win a tactical victory against the armed forces of the Russian Federation if a conflict were to take place today or in the near future. There is no doubt in my mind regarding that. But a strategic victory? No. The world would be in ruins, both figuratively speaking (economically and regarding political stability and what not) and quite possibly more literally - just a heap of smoldering radioactive rubble. Let's hope that the world will never have to experience such a clash. So, NATO wants to place some missiles in Eastern Europe. Russia is opposed to this. When the Obama administration cancelled the EIS plans, people like Merkel, Brown and Sarkozy thought it was a good decision, citing improved relations with Russia as a positive result. The decision was obviously not taken just to be nice or anything, rather it was political pressure about the prospect of international diplomatic issues blossoming up that caused the cancellation. In other words, Russia was taken seriously. :smilewink: Then the US just recently came along with an all new set of plans, again met by heavy skepticism from Russian officials... This is where we are now. They are going to work this out, Moscow wants the ABM system implementation to be transparent and that every aspect should be negotiated, they are not opposed to the idea per se. There will be compromises. Cheers from Scandinavia, moosefoot

That's strange. Since it works for me it should works for you. Be aware that to activate the tacview exportation you should not only put the TacviewExportDCS.lua file in the DCS Black Skark 2\Config\Export directory. You should also : - set EnableExportScript to true in the DCS Black Skark 2\Config\Export\Config.lua file. - append : dofile("./Config/Export/TacviewExportDCS.lua") at the end of DCS Black Skark 2\Config\Export\Export.lua file.

Topol - Why don't you write to the USAF with your thoughts? I'm sure they'll find it most enlightening and will be slapping their heads as to why no-one there thought of it before. I'm sure the idea of deploying a radar a la targetting pod would be a revelation. ED are just developers that have delivered a faithful re-construction of what exists in the military. If you want to know why there's no radar, go to the source itself.

There's a difference between 'needing', 'being useful', and 'being harmful'. Many of the militaries using radar-equipped aircraft for CAS don't have a dedicated CAS aircraft in the first place. Of course they're not going to say "oh no this aircraft has a radar, it can't do CAS!". So I don't know what point you're trying to make. I don't know what current doctrine is, but I would guess that for most cases in present conflicts the radar would only be useful for navigational purposes, given that most of the hostiles are infantry and they probably have ROE requiring them to get visual before engaging. For example Ed Macy's books talks about their ROE restricting them to engaging people who they have actually seen with weapons in their hands. So even though they do have an awesome radar at their disposal, they still need to get visual before they can do anything with it. And at that point, you may as well just aim visually. In that light, the upgrades made to the A-10C make a lot of sense for current requirements. A ground engagement radar would be more useful in the scenarios the A-10 was originally designed for, but I don't think that's a particularly compelling way of selling an upgrade anymore. Point is, it's not just about it being technically possible or not, or being useful or not (more capabilities are almost always useful). To get an upgrade like that done would cost a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of political will, etc. And for what? To give an aircraft capabilities it doesn't really require for its current and likely future uses, when there's already plenty of aircraft (current and planned) that will have those capabilities? So, I'm sure it's been thought of, but decided it's not necessary, not worth the cost, etc. Same thing with e.g. not certifying HARMs to be carried on the A-10. Sure it'd be useful [for us], but the return on investment isn't there. Platform flexibility is always good, but then again, so is having the flexibility to deploy multiple platforms. Also, don't forget that different aircraft have the ability to work together, so in the rare occassion where radar is actually required, they could always have A-10s working with F-16s or F-15Es or whatever - with the radar-equipped aircraft handing off targets to the 'hogs. Or to put it one last way: why not certify the A-10 to carry every single weapon in the US arsenal? Surely there's cases where it could sometimes be useful for them to have Hellfires or Tomahawks or AIM-120s or tactical nukes or etc. etc. Hopefully the absurdity of trying to bolt every possible thingy onto a single platform is evident, and it's obvious you'd do a cost/benefit analysis and eliminate anything that didn't provide a sufficient return. The Air Force no doubt at least considered a radar, and decided it didn't provide sufficient return. It's merely one of many, many things that the A-10 (or any other platform) could have, but doesn't.

I respectfully disagree in as much as I don't think it's ridiculous to debate theoreticals of possible application of a said technology. The majority of us are those who have never flown in the real world, let alone in a combat aircraft. If pondering the possibility of something bordered ridiculous we would never make any progress - the nature of flight simulation leaves it wide open to amateurs and enthusiasts to discuss things which may or may not be possible, and one should not be berated or looked down on for not agreeing with the factual assessment of an expert (with no credentials other than the word of some on a forum, I might add). Ultimately this comes down to one point; should we be encouraged to speculate and philosophize regarding the use of technology and potential applications, or should we simply accept what already is and never consider anything further. I believe that one of those things leads to stagnation and one leads to development of ideas.

Деревья какие то баобабы))), но это если придираться. А так конечно клево и красиво!

Leafer, It's the festive season so here goes... I'll buy you a copy and have it shipped to you. When you do get it, wire me the $39.99 and we'll call it even. PM me for details! :)

According to the description, these are Syrian tanks massing outside the Syrian city of Homs, getting ready to attack :(. You can only ask soldiers to kill so many of their own people before they turn on you. Or so I hope.

И какой комп это выдержит?!:shocking:

Да-а-а, реально, атмосфера впечатляющая... .

Point taken! Luckily, in 1917, that wasn't a major concern. Taking off, landing, fire...now those were issues.:D

... when the chopper uses its blades to chop you up because anything else is a waste of ammo... :D

Oh crumbs - ever since I started in 2006 there have been a lot of simulators on the horizon.......Thing is only ED seem to deliver :D

S**t happens!

I'd love to see Su-17M4 flyable. Avionics is nearly identical to Su-25T, cockpit is also very similar, weapons are the same. Some tweaks in cockpit, flight model (folding wings for player's aircraft) would be sufficient to bring one hell of ground attack aircraft that can do great missions like SEAD, Interdiction, Deep strikes, etc.

video about sam sa15 TOR etc http://video.yandex.ru/users/trigev/ http://video.yandex.ru/users/trigev/view/21/# fabrication of sa15 TOR http://video.yandex.ru/users/trigev/view/24/# :)

Rain would add so much immersion of visible on the canopy!

check the take-off roll of f/a-18 in this video starting from 4:05.

Its already available on Lockon files. See this post. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1300676&postcount=7

Be careful, you might encounter an integrity check fail on some servers. edit - the UB-13 and S-80 rockets look great on the Ka-50 :)

I don't know I don't try it in MP environment. @Jona33: I don't know what's wrong with it I use Win7 64 too. More than a 50people can use it without any problem. What program did you use for modify graphics.cfg? Only notepad++ recommend due other programs should use some issue when you edit any file in BS2. I attached my graphics.cfg pls try it. graphics.cfg

Both T-50-1 and -2 possess TVC. Here are some examples: T-50-1 moving nozzles during a pre-flight check: At ~ 1:05 in. Here is T-50-2 actually using it in flight: Swiveling nozzles can clearly be seen if you have a sharp eye, for example right at the quick flip @ ~3:56 in. One can also spot the LERX's moving about independently, which is old news I guess but nevertheless rather interesting to see during actual flight. Here is a still of T-50-2 with nozzles pointing down unevenly (compare to the angles of the elevators): http://russianplanes.net/images/to56000/055384.jpg These examples appear to be showing "2.5D" TVC, basically simple pitching movement but with the axis tilted some 20-25 degrees or so, and with independence of course (unlike in the F-22). It's not quite as complex as the TVC in some other tech demos (like the MiG-29OVT), but still interesting. Technically it can still be used to augment both pitch and roll in combination with the traditional aerodynamic surfaces, and used to facilitate and maintain maneuverability during high alphas etc where airflow is insufficient/unsuitable for normal aerodynamic control. It's not as versatile as full 3D, but less mechanically complex (which makes it more reliable, lighter, cheaper and quite likely easier to adapt for stealth) while still not being as limiting as basic unison 2D. A compromise in other words, and a rather smart one at that. Old news as well, but what the hell. :D Even though the PAK-FA has hardly done any jawdropping aerobatics so far, the precision in rolls etc. do appear to be F-22-esque at times. I'm sure we will see it pushing the limits over the next couple of years as they progress with development and gain more confidence in the machine and what it should be capable of doing. The biggest question in my opinion regarding TVC is if they are going to move onwards to full 3D in the future or if they will stick to this. Again, the 2.5D idea does indeed seem to be very sound considering the stated goals for this project. The engine testbed demos do appear to show "2.5D" as well, so that's where I'd place my bet. Example: Also, this might be even more old news but regarding flat, stealthy looking nozzles: Nota bene that it's just an amateur interpretation of some tech docs that NPO Saturn supplied when filing for various patents, but I just have to say that it really looks cool with the tilted axis in combination with flat nozzles.

You need a friendly land vehicle at the airfield in order to use Ground Crew there. There's a bunch of JTAC stuff around, but not many step by step newbie guides explaining what it all means, just how to do it. Here's a good video of the steps: The playtime is just how much time you'll have available to be in the area I believe. I'm not entirely sure if there's an in game effect if you tell it one time frame vs another though.

Jeffyd, The easiest way to get all those templates in your editor, is copying the templates.lua file from the download into your "%userprofile%\Saved Games\DCS Warthog\MissionEditor" folder. Make a backup first of the existing file, because it will overwrite your own templates if you have any. You can add them manual too. To do so, open the mission file included in the download. And select one of the units. Click the template icon on the left side in the editor. A new window opens to the right. You give the group a name, and click "save template" to add it to your templates: Most of the units in the list, are just a line-up of all units that are to be found in a battalion, platoon,.... It's up to you what groups you use in your missions. The reason I divided all different units in subgroups, is that you are not forced to deploy a complete battalion for instance, but you can put a single platoon out of it on the map for your mission. For the same reason, almost all groups are "lined up" in the template file. It's up to the mission designer to decide where to actual place them, and in wich setup. The one special template in there, is the farp template. It's a group of vehicules lined out in that way, that they form the outline of a farp, with the heli pads in it. This allows mission designers, to place their farps exactly where they want them to have tham, and put units on the farp without having to check 20 times in the running mission if unit placement is correct. After all units are place, you can delete the farp template group again. The only thing you have to take in account, is that you place the template, and the actual farp structure in the same degrees. Here a few screens to explain more: The FARP template: The FARP structure: In mission: Framerates are affected by the amount of units/groups you use in your mission. You don't have to use them all at once :D Hope it's clear to you now.

Stellar work beczl, you never cease to amaze us +1 :thumbup: edit - will any of these break IC checks online?

Beczl, absolutely amazing work. . . fantastic. Outstanding. THANK U for sharing! I am very happy to see these beautiful models in the DCS-series. Do you have any plans to create a complete SA-3 SAM Site (Launchers position, radarhills, radarsite, depots, garages and so on) - maybe an update of your LOFC2 mod?

Another test¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :music_whistling: I'll just be glad if the next DCS aircraft is used by several countries... and not just 1 like the A-10C and the Ka-50. Not that fictional skins or the breaking of realism bothers me, but it would just be something nice to have in the sim.

USMC got a bargain. http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18115

Yeah, with gear down and locked all of the air comes thru the LERX openings, check this pic these are clearly visible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIMDOdi1fME Отличный трек. Эх, Ace Combat 2, первая любовь моя. Перепрохожу уже сколько раз. Кстати вопрос знатокам. Собирали ли все медали за уничтожения асов? Я имею ввиду режиме HARD в standart и extendet(не помню точное название. Там еще с МиГ-21 начинаешь). Какой нибудь бонус дают? Всем интересующимся: http://acecombat.wikia.com/

Фан-сервис для Русских из AC Assault Horizon, играет в игре два раза во время брифинга перед Москвой и когда Марков над Потомаком летит:)

а что плохого в этом? все узнают, каждый будет на равных правах.