Leaderboard

He was never right, what he advocated was way worse than this, he'd have the AIM-54 be a nerfed Sparrow as in his mind the AIM-54 should just be unable to kill fighters period. I'm not even gonna talk about how he behaved on these forums while ranting about this. That said none of this influenced our research or decision-making. Is it so hard to believe that we continuously research and refine our models? That's also the reason for the implementation of the "active on it's own"-AIM-54C taking time. That we wanted to research and verify the information regarding this as the publically available information wasn't enough. Believe that if you want or not but we have really no reason to not be honest about this.

OnReTech Sinai map boundaries.

F4u stuff

Ich stelle jetzt mal die steile These auf, dass, wer den Apache als "kaum steuerbar" bezeichnet, auch mit anderen Quirls so seine Not haben dürfte. Das FM mag hier und da noch nicht ganz "rund" sein, ok. Aber "kaum steuerbar"? Nope! Egal in welchem Build. Vielleicht kommen da einige vom Shark, die jetzt davon überrascht werden, dass sich so ein Heli mit Heckrotor halt vollkommen anders fliegt. Aber es ist ja auch in RL so, dass sich der Pilot an die Maschine gewöhnen muss. Warum gibt es im echten Leben sonst zu jedem neuen Muster umfangreiche Trainings zur Erlangung einer Musterberechtigung? Dazu kommt, dass die meisten mit für Hubschrauber suboptimalen Bedienelementen unterwegs sein dürften. Ich für meinen Teil könnte mit einem normalen HOTAS, womöglich noch mit dem Heckrotor auf Stickachse, auch nicht präzise fliegen. Auch hier hat es seinen Grund, warum ein Hubschrauber eben genau solche langen Knüppel hat. Bei mir hat es lange Jahre des virtuellen Hubschraubens gebraucht (und Training durch einen ehemaligen UH-Piloten der Bundeswehr, da noch mal ein großes DANKE für!) bis ich das erste Mal über TS gehört hab: "Wer hovert denn da so präzise"? Und dann kapiert habe, dass ich damit gemeint war. Dafür verteile ich eine F18 beim landen meist gleichmäßig auf dem Deck des Boots oder bleibe gleich am Heck hängen. Für mich persönlich ist der Apache überhaupt noch nicht lange genug draußen, dass ich bei der eingeschränkten Zeit, die mir dafür bleibt, genug damit geflogen wäre, um mir da ein Urteil zuzutrauen. Vielleicht sollte man, bevor man als Schreibtischpilot hingeht und mit seiner umfangreichen Expertise einem Modul das Prädikat "unfliegbar" verleiht, sich besser einfach rein setzen und mehr üben. Meist sitzt das "schlechte Flugmodell" nämlich im Pilotensitz.

FAQ, übersetzt aus dem Airplane Simulation Company Discord, Stand 20.9.2022: F: Welche Varianten sind geplant? A: Phase 1: C-130J Super Hercules, Taktischer Transporter Veröffentlichungszeitraum für die folgenden wird zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt bekanntgegeben: C-130J-30, Lockheed Martin-Bezeichnung für die Variante mit 15 Fuß (4,6 m) verlängertem Rumpf; von der USAF nach 2002 kurzzeitig als CC-130J bezeichnet. MC-130J, entwickelt für das Air Force Special Operations Command. Ursprünglich als Combat Shadow II bezeichnet. KC-130J, Tankflugzeug und taktischer Transporter für das United States Marine Corps. Mehr über die Varianten findet ihr hier: (EN) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_C-130J_Super_Hercules#Variants (DE) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_C-130J_Super_Hercules#Einsatzzwecke_der_Typenvarianten F: Sind die C-130H oder frühere Varianten geplant? A: Nein. F: Was ist das erwartete Veröffentlichungsdatum? A: Es wurde noch kein spezifischer Zeitrahmen für die Veröffentlichung bekanntgegeben. F: Wird die C-130J in der Lage sein, Waffen zu transportieren? A: Wir arbeiten darauf hin, dass die C-130 alle Warenhausgegenstände zwischen Stützpunkten transportieren kann. F: CNI/FMS? A: Ja, ein vollständig simuliertes FMS ist enthalten. Wir haben außerdem Luftstraßen/SIDs/STARs etc. modelliert. F: MOAB? A: Ja! F: Wird es eine AC-Variante geben? A: Abhängig von den Verkäufen werden wir eine AC- / Harvest Hawk-Variante in der Zukunft in Betracht ziehen. F: Luftabwürfe? A: Ja. F: Multicrew? A: Ja, mindestens 3. F: Ein-/Ausladen von Fracht, ohne dass Skripte benötigt werden? A: Ja. F: Ist das originale C-130-Mod-Team beteiligt? A: Ja, das Kern-Mod-Team ist beteiligt, allerdings sind die Rollen wegen des deutlichen größeren Projektumfangs ganz anders verteilt. F: Welche Defensivsysteme wird das Flugzeug haben? A: Das Flugzeug wird RWR (Radarwarnempfänger), MWS (Raketenwarner) und IIRCM (Infrarotgegenmaßnahmen) haben. Die Realitätsnähe wird sowohl von der Verfügbarkeit von nicht-klassifizierten Informationen dieser Systeme sowie von DCS selbst abhängen. F: Welche Anstriche werden verfügbar sein? A: Die Liste ist bislang unbestätigt, da es so viele nationale Betreiber gibt, aber der Künstler wird nach der Veröffentlichung einen Bemalungsbaukasten für Anstrich-Ersteller veröffentlichen. F: Werden wir die Luftbetankungssonde hinzufügen? A: Möglicherweise in der Zukunft, nach der ersten Veröffentlichung. ----- Hinweis vom Übersetzer: "IIRCM" ist mir nicht geläufig; möglicherweise ist "IRCM" gemeint; so habe ich es übersetzt.

>> Download

Aus der Ankündigung hier im Forum: Hier findet ihr den Discord von Airplane Simulation Company: https://discord.gg/9U27T9u3SX

I'm going to post my youtube comment on that video here, I encourage Phantom lovers to have a stiff drink on hand So much is wrong here. This video started off ok but then took a very strange nose dive after the 6:00 mark (no pun intended). 6:20: Initial F-4's delivered to the Navy and marines did not include laser bomb guidance systems. 7:03 The F-4N upgraded variant of the B pre-dated the J 7:20 What is "operational lock on capability?" Acquiring, locking, and FIRING on a target without a human in the loop? Is this a confused misinterpretation of the VTAS system? That's my best guess at what happened here in the research phase. Or are you referring to semi-active radar guidance for missiles? In which case, that was not pioneered on the F-4J, or even the F-4 in general, it pre-dates the F-4. 5 seconds of google will clarify what SARH is, (and the pilot still needs to pull the trigger or pickle it off, folks) 7:44 No, the F-4N is a further development of the F-4B, and pre-dates the J. The S is a post-Vietnam upgrade of the J 7:50 How specifically did smokeless engine improve the reliability and aerodynamic capability? The performance of the engine was better, but not necessarily because it was smokeless. This is confusing 8:20 The F-4S did not serve in Vietnam 9:03 No. Incorrect. Iran does not operate F-4J's. They received F-4D's, followed by F-4E's and R-F4E's. They have never operated an F-4J. 10:33 Easily outmaneuvering and outshooting the MiGs after improvements to the equipment and pilot training. The initial reputation wasn't that good, and that is an important part of the history of the Phantom that directly led to the creation of TOP GUN by Dan Pederson and the rest of the bros. Would have been a nice tie-in here 10:47 What specifically about the Phantom was modular? It wasn't any more modular than other fighters, upgrades like slats and radars required substantial re-fit, it wasn't like you could just snap things on and off like lego. 11:11 From birth the F-4 Phantom was fitted with a PULSE radar, not a DOPPLER radar. It did see a doppler radar in later variants, but it absolutely did not start life with a doppler radar, this is just plain disinformation 11:28 You said meters per second but the screen shows mph 11:47 EIGHT air to air missiles total, not twelve. 4 sparrows in recessed fuselage nacelles, and 2 pairs of sidewinders on the inboard pylons. The Navy variants had launchers on the inboard pylons as well that could fit one sparrow each as well, so a total of 6 sparrows, or 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders. Unless you're referring to some modern frankenjet, there is no ordnance chart of a phantom with more than 8 A2A missiles 11:58 Initial production versions of the Phantom did not have a cannon. Initial prototypes did have colt cannons, but these were removed from the design. This is what was controversial - it was a fighter that went into production and hit the fleet without a gun. There are plenty of other sources that discuss this so I won't get into it here, but the way you present it in the video is incorrect. 12:10 Which historians? 12:29 Interesting that you mention this here, but you never once mention the F-4E anywhere else in the video up until this point, especially given that was the definitive export version and the backbone of the USAF until the Eagle came along 12:41 I am going to start a drinking game where every time someone says that their jet drivers coined the term "speed is life" I take a shot, as well as "one pass, haul ass". These did not originate in the Phantom community 12:45 in truth, it was true - Phantom drivers kept their speed up to both achieve their best rate speed, and out-energy their MiG counterparts with their thrust to weight gained from the J79's. Also, at 10:33 you literally said the exact opposite statement and you don't back it up either time lmfao 13:03 I think at this point my sanity is slipping away - THE F-4 PHANTOM IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN THE PRIMARY TRAINER OF THE USAF OR NAVY 14:45 They weren't RE-designated the F-4G, the F-4G WAS the wild weasel. YGBSM! 15:23 ………. No. Just no. They retired it in 2004. Phantoms are going strong in Turkey and Greece however. I need a drink

Hi, regarding the Mi-24 AP the team are working on a pitch fluctuation issue, we will also be updating the manual in the future with a better explanation on the AP channels so please be patient, the best practice is to have all three channels on. Thanks

220кг - это масса ракеты, а не БЧ. БЧ у неё 57 кг

Not yet, sorry. I'm working on the remaining seasons. Once they are ready, I'll update the first post with the link. As for the previous version, I won't be uploading it till the end of the week (need some space on my google drive for testing new releases). Please be patient - you won't regret it. AUTUMN:

Nineline, You mentioned that Combined arms is not being made into a sim? What? why not. I personally would pay the 80$ for a full fidelity Stryker, M1 Abrams, Bradly, BMP, M4 Sherman... etc. Is it "Digital Combat Simulator"? or Just "Digital Something we can't decide Simulator"? I bought CA when I read "Many future update and improvements..." bla, bla. I am interested in all aspects of military hardware. I buy most of the modules, but let's be honest, Combined Arms isn't worth half of what you're charging for it...when it's on sale. It's just not enjoyable to play. bugs and track reports aside, it's not fun. it's not engrossing. There are 2 modules I feel like I kind of got fleeced on. Combined Arms, and South Atlantic. Now that's just my feelings, and such. My opinion. But I run a training squadron, and no one I've met enjoys playing combined arms. and again, this is just my take, but Ed is a business and if you have a module that the majority of players don't seem to enjoy playing, maybe it needs a serious rework. Now, i cough and laugh whenever I hear someone say "but in war thunder..." yeah, it's a video game. Which is why, it really hurts to say, but if war thunder can make a Panzer IV that I can hook to rudder pedals and steer with the tracks (differential drive and braking.) , and has a 3D damage model... I don't see why ED can't and do it better to boot. Make a M4 Sherman or any tank to the level you've made some aircraft. Hey, have Aerges do it, they did great on the F1. Or India Fox Echo... Again, just my opinion, but if ED decided to even attempt to break into the market of fully clickable ground vehicles, Ed could bring in so much of the market share from people who honestly don't want to fly. I know several guys who will RIO all day, they just don't fly. They don't like to fly. They like to run systems and blow stuff up. They'd jump at a chance to play an M1, a Bradly, or anything. So is it "Digital Combat Simulator"? or not?

Time to revisit the accuracy of AA/AAA. Here's some links to stats and info: https://www.quora.com/How-effective-were-anti-aircraft-guns-during-the-Second-World-War https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/german-aaa.html The first study includes data from the US Navy and as an example shows that for say the 20mm AA, that it would normally take over 5000 rounds to kill an aircraft. The second talks about the use of larger AAA, like the FLAK38/41 including: The Germans had stats that it took roughly 16,000 rounds on average to bring down a single bomber. The FLAK guns had a minimum 20 second period for the fusing, and were typically employed against targets at over 20,000' To predict where to fire a large AA - "This method requires that the aircraft be flying reasonably straight and level for about 90 seconds before reaching the predicted point" To sanity check how the above stands up in DCS. I setup 3 airfields, one with a single 20mm AA. The other two with FLAK unit and the spotting kit, then flew a P51 straight and level over each. At 2000' the P51 was shot down on the 4th burst of fire by the 20mm At 5000' the P51 was happily engaged by the large FLAK At 10000' the P51 was happily engaged by the large FLAK The track file is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IVThE92KoJQTkER03k7lcTQd6sIXFtO6/view?usp=sharing If the above links are anything like accurate that would imply: - The big FLAK shouldn't have been shooting at the P51 at 5000' and 10000' - Accuracy of the shooting against a target at 2000' is simply too good

Please tell me the singular air force base Tabuk isn't actually being lobbed off....... As it appears just outside the south-eastern corner of your box....

all this area will be included in early access, but red area will be more detail (high detail zone)

Ok, nice post by the way, and glad you kept it really civil and all. Thanks for that mate . Actually I fully agree it's not s fun vs realism debate or the like, whatever one enjoys or have fun with is irrelevant to the realism or lack of of the module. I like realism by the way, just not only the systems realism buttonwise thing, for me the realism of the flying part is also very relevant, and DCS is the only platform allowing us to do so to this level, just that. Off the flight envelope modelling is tough for every developer, it's just a kind of an impossible task without so many data we'll hardly see it fully implemented ever, but it's still good enough as it works, and MiG-21 FM is not that bad at all. From my stand point it's really enjoyable. Systems and all, I know there's differences, hope dev can manage to enhance it with the new info they got from a different source, but I'm not complaining how it is, I haven't flown a real MiG-21 ever to complain about how it works, and either offline or online I think it still is enjoyable as is. Hope it gets better, sure I do, but since we don't know either when we would get those updates (and still it's a hell of a lot of a job to devs on a niche game to ask them) I can't tell anybody it's a bad module and not to buy it, it's quite enjoyable even as is. Just that. If it doesn't cut it for you preventing to enjoy the module it's Ok, but that's not everyone's position on that matter for sure, which is also what I tried to show there even though mine can also not be the main position here .

Somewhere he's still getting slapped by A's, so it all balances out.

Never, because he was still wrong in most of his assertions and provided abusive and harassing DMs. There's a reason he's not here.

Well. I actually tried this today: Any 10.4 inch 4:3-screen fits nicely. I would say the easiest way to make this work is to use Helios.

The Clean Sweep Tacview I posted above I Started shooting at 50 Nautical miles and just fired as fast as I could after that, so closest shot was at 50, furthest was somewhere around 60. I didnt crank and due to the high closure you can see one of the Mig-29s (with an R27R) barely gets a shot off on me before my missile went active and he elected to defend, trashing his missile. An additional fulcrum also managed to get a shot off. If I had done a proper idle descent crank after my last missile was off the rail, they would have never been remotely close to being able to shoot at me. They all chose to do some form of hard drag maneuver, and all died. I got lucky in that none of my missiles missed, I could run the same thing over and have every single one of the missiles whiff if the variables change a little bit in how and when the AI maneuvers. You cannot control that, and no missile no matter how fast or high or close you shoot it is guaranteed to kill your target. Work in probabilities, not guarantees. I alsways assume an average of 50% Pk if I meet my wickets of good employment, doesnt mean if less happens I think something is broken, doenst mean if more happens I did particularly well. But there are many variables at play here and you can only control so many of them.

Freu mich bis jetzt über alles was ich lese. Diese Herc könnte ein wichtiger Pionier für DCS werden. Ich hab einen Freund der ausschließlich zivile Sims nutzt davon erzählt und ihr hättet seine Augen sehen sollen. Vielleicht bringt das viele neue User an DCS heran, vor allem weil man DCS kostenlos bekommt uns nach der Zeit auch jedes Modul für zwei Woche kostenlos testen kann. Wo gibt's das denn noch? Das könnt groß werden.

Als wenn die Ankündigung der Herc nicht schon genug wäre... 4 Props: Das gab es vorher nicht. Wenn sich das durchsetzt und die nicht pfuschen (2 in 1) könnten wir auf alles andere mit 4 Triebwerken hoffen. Von B-17 über C17, B-58 .... you name it. KC-130J: YES! Wenn auch erst einmal "nur" der Basket, aber durch Spieler geflogene Tanker, was für Möglichkeiten. Dann ist es zu Buddy-Buddy Fähigkeit nicht mehr weit. ich sehe mich schon in meiner geliebten A-4 Orbits drehen ^^ Spekulieren darf mann ja ^^ Logistiksystem: Bekommt dann endlich mehr Stellungswert. Nicht mehr "hunderte" Meilen mit Kisten unter dem Heli durch die Gegend eiern. Vieles war ja bereits durch den Anubis Mod da gewesen, aber ich fand den Mod doch recht hakelig, als Teaser für das Modul kann ich es aber kaum erwarten. In Full Fidelity? GENIAL!

So just look at what you are competing with, against a smaller RCS target like the JF-17 with a modern 21st century AAM, none of what you just described is unreasonable for the tomcat and the phoenix. Why should it be able to compete head to head like to like. Your advantages as always lie in early detect, which when you combine with a datalink picture (absolutely not unreasonable in a scenario with a JF-17) You should be maximizing that in order to get your shots off earlier since you will be able to shoot at a longer range than they will. Like this is legit probably the toughest fight in DCS right now for the tomcat, and is showcasing vastly different generations of capability. The fact that you can still employ and shape your tactics to affect what is happening in a 40 year older fighter with a 30 year older missile than your opponents speaks to how good it was, but you definitely shouldn't expect to dominate at all envelopes. Against what the tomcat was primarily intending to employ against, including all the way up to a SU-27 with an R-27ER, or a Mig-31 with an R-33 (the most potent threats until the tomcats retirement in 2006) the AWG-9/AIM-54C combo in particular would have been utterly dominant, much like it still is in DCS. If you are thinking you should be able to dominate an AMRAAM or SD-10 shooter inside their employment envelope I think you are starting to see why the AIM-54 was not continued and the AMRAAM took over as the employment weapon of choice.

We made a mistake in the spelling of the Username in the message above, but we have corrected this error. Apologies

We are very happy to join the DCS team as a third party. Thanks in advance for your support!

Да, самый крутой "подарок" игрокам была бы кликабельность всех имеющихся некликабельных. И за это готовы были бы заплатить разумную цену многие... Другое дело... я не разработчик и не представляю, насколько это сложно или легко. А разбама "с детства боюсь"... хватит мне луня.

Не надо копировать и вставлять американскую анимацию. Но поставить человечка который просто стоит и смотрит, или иногда прогуливается по палубе, осматривает состояние каких то элементов и мезанизмов - нет ничего противоречащего реальности. По сути основная задача персонала это перемещать самолеты на стоянку и предполетная потготовка. Никаких танцев на палубе они не делают

DCS: Sinai Development Report The total size of the DCS: Sinai map is 1500 x 1000 km, of which, 700x700 km will be in high-detail. The map includes the entire Sinai Peninsula, eastern Egypt and the Nile Delta, southern Israel including Gaza, western Jordan, and western Saudi Arabia. This area features a wide variety of landscapes like mountains, rivers, desert, agricultural areas, sea and bays that provide a variety of mission and campaign settings. The map is being designed to represent the 2000s and up to the present. It is planned to recreate about 40 airfields, both military and civilian: Wadi al Jandali, Abu Suwayr, Faid Air Base, Nevatim Air Base, Ramon Airbase, and many more. The map also contains many military bases and strategic seaports that allow for interesting strike missions. A large number of military facilities and bases will help realize various historical scenarios based on the Arab-Israeli wars, as well as fictional missions and campaigns. Major cities include Cairo (including Cairo International Airport), Ismailia, Alexandria, Suez, Port Said, and others. About 100 unique objects and architectural monuments will be included. All objects and assets are divided into territories to present greater unique, regional characteristics. The coastline of the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Suez, and the Gulf of Aqaba will be created in detail. The project will consist of three phases, and each phase will include airfields, unique objects, and unique scenes. The first phase will include the entire territory with major cities and 14 air bases in Israel and Egypt. The second phase will add 11 more airfields. The third phase and final phase will add 12-14 more Egyptian military airfields. The OnReTech team is making every effort to ensure that customers will receive the first two phases in early access, which will help to fully reflect the theater of operations of the Arab-Israeli conflicts.

I think you can turn it on or off in the MISC tab: (Battle Damage Assessment).. not 100% sure it is the same BDA window that you are talking about which indeed can be set in the Mission Editor per mission. nullYou should also be able to HOTKEY it based on the settings in the UI LAYER: null

Welcome to DCS! I am really looking forward to your map, a very exciting playground for many missions

Testing in single player, the fuel quantity was working correctly. Cold Start - ground power and battery ON, ground crew: rearm & refuel Initial loadout: Full Internal and center line tank (1200 L) --> 5371 litre • Full Internal --> 4248 litre • 50% Internal --> 2131 litre • Full Internal and 2x Wing tanks (1200 L) --> 6490 litre Comment Perhaps the mission you are testing in was created with ["F1AutoCounterSet"] = false For info. this is the Mirage-F1 section from my mission's .miz "options" file ["Mirage-F1"] = { ["F1SimplifiedGearLever"] = true, ["F1NewABDetentPos"] = 85, ["F1SimplifiedFiringSafety"] = true, ["F1ModifiedABDetentPos"] = false, ["F1AutoCounterSet"] = true, }, -- end of ["Mirage-F1"] Tested DCS Open Beta 2.7.17.39492

It's not sufficient to disable the battery only, because the stability derivatives on this missile model do not appear to be very strong. Having performed the same tests there is a clear effect of induced drag on the missile. Orange here having induced drag and blue having no induced drag or lift. You must remove the induced drag and lift to get the correct result. As the missile should be stable at zero angle of attack.

Mit der zunehmenden Anzahl an Drittanbietern ist es wohl nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis wir die ersten überschneidenden Karten haben. Und die ganze Welt ist ja das Ziel von DCS. Denke (und hoffe) auch, dass wir dank der Hercules neue Piloten bekommen, welche auf den Geschmack kommen und DCS neu entdecken werden.

Finally

0 Degrees overlayed onto the NASA chart, shows that the missile still doesn't have enough drag. NASA simulation shows the missile decelerates below subsonic in ~55 seconds. Current AIM-54 Decelerates much slower, getting subsonic in the same parameters around 105-110 seconds. Staying supersonic for nearly twice as long. If this was done as an ACM shot, this would actually input more drag on the missile as it is trying to maintain level flight, whereas the NASA shot should have fixed fins thus being ballistic. The Blue lines are what you are looking at here And here is the 30 degree shot overlaid. This one wildly does not match the drag profile and seems more to match the 45 degree one, at least in shape. The end result is still that it has a much higher speed further on in its flight than the real one. Some of this may be down to the test parameters, I'm assuming you did this in an ACM shot. I do not know if that has the same control laws (not ballistic, tries to maintain attitude) as what the NASA simulation described (Fins fixed, completely ballistic). It is notable that this shot is actually closer to the NASA Mach than the zero degree profile. Red line vs the blue tacview curve.

+1 Der verbleibende limitierende Faktor ist allerdings die Mapgröße. Wenn ich eine C-17 in Charleston vollladen kann, die Kiste dann über den Teich fliegen kann und dann "hier lokal" auf der bisherigen Map breitfliegen kann, dann sind wir da, wo der zivile Sim und DCS sich komplett überschneiden. So lange DCS nur Handtücher mit ein paar hundert Kilometer Kantenlänge als "Sandkastenwelt" darstellen kann, rennt niemand die Bude ein. Es wird aber sicherlich einigen den Einstieg bringen.

If you late activate units in the mission editor they should then spawn with hot engines. The sooner an option gets added to the editor to warm engines the better. With path finding being so broken and ground units generally causing big FPS issues (especially in multiplayer) moving units around becomes less viable. Which ironically sort of nullifies the point in having a fancy FLIR model.

Adding manpower (or money) doesn't always speed things up. It can also slow them down if done poorly, and will have no effect in the best case scenario (read: the new dev is told to stand in the corner and refill coffee mugs) if the tasks are already maximally parallelized. This might already be the case with the core overhaul, particularly since it's not uncommon for some otherwise parallelizable tasks to be held up by a need for a certain milestone to be passed by another task. For example, new ATC and Dynamic Campaign might both require under the hood changes to AI logic to enable them to hook into the AI's decision making process, which can only be implemented as part of a larger task that simply isn't there yet. Generally, if you can improve a project's ETA by simply adding another person halfway through, that means it was critically undermanned when it started. A project properly staffed and budgeted from the start will not benefit from either extra people or extra money, and in fact can even be slowed down by that.

Gents, Appreciate the passion and discussion and thank you for the great feedback. A couple of notes and we won't really comment more in-depth on two topics: re the nozzle exit area: We are aware of this not being "correctly" set and this was (at least for now) intentional per the steps we took during development. We're revisiting this topic, but as of yet it's unclear whether this will change. Without delving into specifics, it's not as easy as setting it to the correct real nozzle exit area without more due diligence. Re guidance- we hope to make further improvements in this area, however it requires the help of our partners and moving the missile to the new schema. We'll be driving this topic forwards as quickly as possible. Guidance can have significant effects on kinematics, and over the years both guidance and our subsequent kinematics have changed. Right now, we've chosen to make a missile that is as close as possible aerodynamically - even if guidance isn't perfect yet. This to leave ourselves with the correct foundation for any improvements that should come from guidance, not aerodynamics, possibly at the cost of lessened performance for a time. Thanks again for all the wonderful discussion and feedback!

You should! It's one of those topics that aren't usually covered in any DCS manual, but since it applies to all of aviation, air pressure and altimeter settings are something all pilots should definitely know about. "Kollsman window" is just another name for the small subscale-window inside of every barometric altimeter, also known simply as the "altimeter subscale". This subscale has its limits, which is why QFE can't always be set. QNH, well, if the sea level air pressure was extremely high or extremely low, it might not be possible to set QNH either, but under normal circumstances, QNH shouldn't be a problem, whereas QFE totally depends on the elevation of the airfield in question (or rather, it depends on the density altitude, which in turn depends on elevation and local air pressure). That may depend on the autopilot or hold modes that are currently active. When you change the altimeter subscale, to the aircraft that looks like it just lost or gained dozens of feet in altitude, and with some modes it may now try rather violently to correct that and "get back" to the desired altitude. To avoid any such problem, the altimeter subscale should be set well before landing. And the other reason is, you really want to have a good altitude reference before beginning the approach, so you don't accidentally fly straight into terrain in bad visibility, just because the altimeter wasn't adjusted for local air pressure and you ended up 1200 feet lower than planned.

Kollsman window and knob is just the name of the dispay that says 29.92 (or whatever number) and the knob that changes the value shown in the window. F-16 and really most modern Western jets aren't designed for QFE altimeter reference. Even Soviets which commonly used it and have special altimeters that could be adjusted really low sometimes couldn't set 0 height at high airports.

The community does not have access to any APIs that can garbage collect these objects as far as I am aware. I fully agree that it will probably take time since debugging can be a pain and hope ED do not rush the investigation and potentially come out with a non-fix or break something in a rush to resolve the issue. However I hope that "It might be something in the mission" will not be a position that ED take as a reasoning for doing nothing since the DCS World Platform should not allow invalid objects to be created via its APIs in the first place. It should instead return an error if it is incorrectly called rather than silently create invalid objects. * If the problem lies within DCS world and can be fixed then great! * If the problem lies in the scripting involved in the missions then the DCS World API that is allowing these invalid objects be created should have validation added and return an error instead. Not just in this case, but in general.

I was signed up for the DEV version, so for me it was a complete wipe, format and re-install from scratch. I'm.. I'm not a developer as it seems

The problem isn't that this information isn't available... the problem is that it isn't available in-game. In many missions where F10 map options are restrictive, your starting location isn't necessarily displayed.

IMO it is boderline audacious to charge $40 for this module. The feature improvement over the last years is negligible. What it does now is close to what it did when it came out, while the very basics are still not covered, yet. First and foremost this is the path finding algorithm. Just now I sent a Bradley on its way, a short way mind, on a road and it still managed to get itself stuck on the railing on a bridge. That is one wasted unit that it took some time to build on a MP server. CA is generally unable to follow any path that is anything but straight, as vehicles will get stuck at things like light posts at the road side. On the Rotorheads server you are actually forbidden to move infantry, as it is too resource hungry. So a greedy algorithm that doesn't even work properly. And obviously there is no VR support. So I actually have to restart DCS in 2D to hop into my just created unit in a MP server, just to find I cannot drive it because it is stuck. I recently had a chat with a buddy of mine and he asked if CA was worth the $40. I couldn't believe this is the current price. IMO in its current state it is not worth more than $10. Compare how much more graphics and systems work you get with a WWII plane. To me CA is a classic example of a module effectively abandoned. Other thing like Super Carrier are just more sexy and sell better.

The Ground is MUCH NEEDED area now that we have helicopters. If your going to call it "World", then there needs to be a World. What I really want to see next is much more varied terrain (Getting so tired of forests next to flat farmland ). Swamps, canyons, small villages with more complex houses and much better texturing, etc. Terrain tanks and heli's can use to an advantage. Anything but the usual we've had for the last 10 years or so. Also, more varied ground units, in realistic groups, with AI that actually knows what it's doing. Mechanized rifle companies, realistic groups of SAMS with command vehicles, etc. Realistic Armies on the move.